Loading...
2015-07-07 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA July 7, 2015 — 7:00 pm Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Adopt Agenda 5. Consent Agenda a. Approval of June 16, 2015 City Council Minutes b. Approval of June 25, 2015 Special Council Meeting Minutes c. Acknowledgement of June 29, 2015 Council Workshop Minutes d. Acknowledgement of June 23, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes e. Approve Resolution 2015-47 Critical Area Permit for Fence at 731 Woodridge Drive, Planning Case 2015-19 f. Approve Tobacco License for Twin City Beverage Inc., d/b/a Mendota Liquor Barrel g. Approve Ordinance 480 Amendment to City Code Regarding Barbeques at Multi -Family Dwellings h. Approve Resolution 2015-43 Receipt of Gifts for 5K Run and Parks Celebration i. Approve Resolution 2015-53 Authorize Use of Found Property j. Acknowledgement of Deer Population Management Plan Update k. Approve Out of State Travel for Police Department I. Authorize Purchase of Squad Car m. Personnel Action Item n. Approval of May 2015 Treasurer's Report o. Approval of Claims List p. Approval of Contractor List q. Approve Ordinance 481 Enterprise Drive Parking Restrictions r. Acknowledgement of Airport Relations Commission Minutes 6. Public Comments 7. Presentations a. Saint Thomas Academy Scoreboard Revisions b. Review of 2014 Audit -Matt Mayer, Kern, DeWenter, Viere c. Proclamation for St. Peter's Church 8. Public Hearings a. Resolution 2015-51 Critical Area Permit at 1101 Sibley Memorial Highway, Planning Case 2015-16 b. Resolution 2015-52 Appeal from Zoning Determination for STEP Academy at 1345 Mendota Heights Road, Planning Case 2015-18 9. New and Unfinished Business a. Resolution 2015-49 Variance at 949 Mendota Heights Road, Planning Case 2015-21 b. Resolution 2015-48 Preliminary Plat at 2511 and 2525 Condon Court, Planning Case 2015-20 c. Resolution 2015-50 Lot Split and Variance at 650 North Freeway Road, Planning Case 2015-23 d. Ordinance 479 Concerning Interim Uses, Planning Case 2015-22 10. Community Announcements 11. Council Comments 12. Adjourn page 3 5 a. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, June 16, 2015 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Krebsbach called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilmembers present included Duggan, Povolny, and Petschel. Councilmember Norton arrived at 7:02 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Krebsbach presented the agenda for adoption agenda. Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1(Norton) Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of the CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Krebsbach presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilmember Povolny moved approval of the consent calendar as presented and authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein, pulling items d) Approval of Lease Agreement for Tri State Bobcat Mower Attachment, f) Approval of Professional Services Agreement Task Order/Redevelopment Planning Study Scope — Stantec Consulting Services Inc., g) Authorization of a Sub -License to an Existing Right -of -Way License Agreement for 953 Wagon Wheel Trail, j) Resolution 2015-41, Accepting Work for Victoria Road, Job Number 201308, and 1) Approval of Claims List. a. Approval of June 2, 2015 City Council Minutes b. Approval of June 2, 2015 City Council Closed Session Minutes c. Approval of Out of State Travel — City Administrator d. Approval of Lease Agreement for Tri State Bobcat Mower Attachment e. Receipt of May 2015 Fire Department Synopsis Report f Approval of Professional Services Agreement Task Order — Stantec Consulting Services Inc. g. Authorization of Sub -License to Existing Right -of -Way License Agreement - 953 Wagon Wheel Trl June 16, 2015 Mendota Heights City Council Page I page 4 h. Approve Resolution 2015-42, Declaring Excess Property - Administrator's Office Furniture i. Personnel Action Items j. Resolution 2015-41, Accepting Work for Victoria Road, Job Number 201308 lc. Police Squad Cars Update 1. Approval of Claims List m. Approval of Contractor List n. Approval of May 2015 Building Activity Report Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEM D) APPROVAL OF LEASE AGREEMENT FOR TRI STATE BOBCAT MOWER ATTACHMENT Councilmember Povolny asked why the City was not purchasing the bobcat mower attachment rather than leasing. Assistant City Engineer Ryan Ruzek replied that the agreement is a Lease -to -Own. Councilmember Povolny moved to authorize the signing of the Tri State Bobcat lease agreement to purchase a high flow brush cat mower attachment for the Bobcat for the purchase price of $4,800.00. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 F) APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TASK ORDER — STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. Planner Nolan Wall explained the proposed Professional Services Agreement Task Order with Stantec Consulting Services for the Redevelopment Incentive Grant project. Mr. Phil Carlson, Senior Planner with Stantec, was present to summarize the scope of the proposed project and answer questions from the City Council. Councilmember Duggan requested when Tasks 1, 2, and 3 are completed, an update memo be sent to the Mayor and Councilmembers. Mr. Carlson replied that this was their intention to put down on paper what comes out of each task and to share that with the Council and staff. Mayor Krebsbach moved to approve the Professional Services Agreement Task Order with Stantec Consulting Services for the work proposed in the Industrial District Redevelopment Plan Scope. Councilmember Povolny seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 G) AUTHORIZATION OF A SUB -LICENSE TO AN EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY June 16, 2015 Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 page 5 LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR 953 WAGON WHEEL TRAIL Assistant City Engineer Ryan Ruzek explained that in 2013 the City approved a license agreement for the use of an undeveloped City right-of-way as a private driveway to the residence at 963 Wagon Wheel Trail. Included with that agreement was a Shared Driveway Maintenance Agreement between the owners of 963 and 945 Wagon Wheel Trail. 953 Wagon Wheel Trail is now a developed lot and the owner would like to have access to the new home using this right-of-way. The driveway agreement has been amended so all three homes now are on the agreement. They are requesting City approval to execute that amendment. Councilmembers asked questions regarding the future of the undeveloped right-of-way if additional homes are added to the area. Clarification was made of the 5th "Whereas" [WHEREAS, the CITY desires to allow LICENSEE to utilize the unimproved right of way for a private drive until such time as the right of way is improved]. Confirmation was made that all three parties are in agreement, the City is protected if two of the owners decide to return the right-of-way to the City for development, and utilities are currently available to the properties. Councilmember Petschel moved to authorize staff to execute an amendment to the 2013 License Agreement establishing a sub -license to the owner of 953 Wagon Wheel Trail. Councilmember Norton seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 J) RESOLUTION 2015-41, ACCEPTING WORK FOR VICTORIA ROAD, JOB NUMBER 201308 Councilmember Duggan questioned why there was an increase in costs for this project. Assistant City Engineer Ryan Ruzek replied that some of the increase was due to the additional work added to the project, including the hockey rink paving at Marie Park. The scope of the project was increased so the actual Victoria Road costs were within the original contract amount. However, there was additional work done by the contractor, which brought the cost above the original contract amount. All of these additional costs were itemized in the January 6th memo to Council. Councilmember Duggan moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2015-41, "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK FOR VICTORIA ROAD and ROLLING GREEN NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS, JOB NUMBER 201308". Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 June 16, 2015 Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 page 6 L) APPROVAL OF CLAIMS LIST Mayor Krebsbach noted that the item in question on the Claims List was the payment to the St. Paul Regional Water Authority. City Administrator McNeill explained that this payment is for work completed for the Sibley Memorial Trail. The Council was provided a list of the total costs for the trail. The total cost of the contract at this time with Urban Companies is $215,891 which includes a change order approved previously by the Council. The payment being approved tonight is for St. Paul Regional Water Authority's share of the costs of lowering the pipe — approximately $32,000. The funds would come out of the water surcharge fund. Since there was so much interest by the residents on the Sibley Memorial Trail, Mayor Krebsbach had requested a timeline of when the project started, how long the trail is, and an estimate on the cost per foot of that trail and some of the complications with it. Assistant Engineer Ruzek replied that Sibley Memorial Trail was being constructed roughly from Lilydale Road to just west of Wachtler Avenue. The trail is approximately 2,100 feet long and the total project costs were estimated at $260,000 after all of the restoration is complete, equating to approximately $120 per linear foot — which is at least twice the cost of a normal trail restoration. It is hoped that the trail would be substantially completed by June 17, 2015. Councilmember Duggan reiterated his discomfort at the City having to pay the complete cost of lowering the water main when St. Paul Regional Water Authority originally installed it incorrectly. He requested that staff pursue this further with SPRWA. City Attorney Tom Lehmann replied that he would look into any recourse available. Councilmember Duggan moved to approve the Claims List subject to the City of Mendota Heights pursuing St. Paul Regional Water Authority for potential reimbursement. Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Rachel Quick, a Mendota Heights resident, encouraged the Council to explore a chicken ordinance. She shared photographs with the Council of children interacting with chickens. She also shared the results of research conducted showing which neighboring communities allow backyard chickens. Mr. John Solberg, South Area Manager for MnDOT, gave a brief update on the Trunk Highway 13 project. The project started approximately two weeks ago and they still expect the project to be completed by August 28. As of now, they have started working on the drainage infrastructure down on the west end (Mendota side). The trail will remain open with periodic closures. Updates are posted at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/bM13mendota. Councilmembers asked questions regarding how businesses along Highway 13 are being informed of road closures, gas/power line moves, and water shutoffs. June 16, 2015 Mendota Heights City Council Page 4 page 7 PRESENTATIONS A) SERGEANT SWEARING IN CEREMONY Chief of Police Michael Aschenbrener introduced Officer Robert Lambert who has been promoted to Sergeant. He gave a brief background on his education and experience. Officer Lambert read the Code of Ethics and Mayor Krebsbach presided over the swearing in ceremony. PUBLIC HEARING A) RESOLUTION 2015-40, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, FINAL PLAT, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, RYLAND HOMES PLANNING CASE 2015-17 Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant, Ryland Homes, has requested a Conditional Use Permit for amendments to the Final Planned Unit Development Plan, Final Plat, and Development Agreement. He shared an aerial image of the site and noted that the proposed amendments are required to create an additional outlot. Planner Wall showed the general area where the outlot is planned to be located. During grading of the site, a debris field was uncovered that encompassed the rear portion of approximately ten lots, all of which are abutting Resurrection Cemetery property. Ryland Homes is proposing to create an outlot to remove that area from the lots approved on the original plat. The debris consisted of concrete, asphalt, and miscellaneous trash, none of which was contaminated. The developer worked with the MPCA and Dakota County to coordinate clean up activities. The developer is proposing the outlot be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. The Mayor opened the public hearing for this item. Mark Sonstegard, representing Ryland Homes, was present to answer questions from the Council and to address the noise abatement standards and remediation efforts they are including in the construction of these townhomes. Councilmember Petschel moved to close the public hearing Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmembers asked for a description of the homes being built. Councilmember Duggan moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2015-40 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, FINAL PLAT, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. Councilmember Povolny seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 June 16, 2015 Mendota Heights City Council Page 5 page 8 NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) RESOLUTION 2015-39, SUPPORTING THE RIVER TO RIVER GREENWAY MASTER PLAN Planner Nolan Wall noted that Mr. John Mertens, Senior Planner from Dakota County, was in attendance to present information on the River to River Greenway Master Plan. Mr. Mertens gave a presentation that included a short overview of the plan, definition of a `geenway,' the purpose of the master plan, and background on the planning process. Councilmembers asked questions regarding the crossing at Highway 110 and the Mendota -Lebanon alignment through Friendly Hills, specifically through Friendly Marsh. Discussion occurred regarding the fifth "Whereas" of the resolution appearing to be too final in its wording. Councilmember Duggan suggested that the phrase "and is subject to further discussion with the City" be added to the fifth Whereas paragraph. Planner Wall pointed out that this resolution only applies to the River -to -River Greenway — the trail north of Highway 110 — and does not include the trail located south of Highway 110, the Mendota -Lebanon section. City Attorney Tom Lehmann suggested the addition of a final paragraph be added to the resolution, "AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Mendota Heights looks forward to further discussions and input regarding future planning pertaining to the River to River Greenway." This would create an understanding by the Council that this is not the final adoption of this plan going forward. Mr. Mertens agreed to this addition to the resolution. Councilmember Duggan moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2015-39 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE RIVER TO RIVER GREENWAY MASTER PLAN with the additional language as suggested by City Attorney Tom Lehmann. Councilmember Povolny seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Povolny left the meeting at approximately 8:40 p.m. B) DISCUSSION OF WEBSITE REDESIGN Assistant to the City Administrator Tamara Schutta presented a recommendation for a website redesign. The current website was designed in 2009 using the GovOffice platform and best practices indicate that a web page should be redesigned every five years. Currently, the photographs and watermark on the site cannot be changed as it is part of a built-in template. Last fall, CivicPlus contacted the City's webmaster team and presented what they could do. Assistant to the Administrator Schutta shared images of other city websites that CivicPlus has created. The features include an FAQ page, news flashes, calendar, the ability to create forms through the document center, quick links, ePay, Notify Me, staff directory, community voice, community connection, citizen request tracker, Facebook / Twitter setup, and RSS Feed setup. This new platform would create community engagement and provide a more flexible management web content. June 16, 2015 Mendota Heights City Council Page 6 page 9 Ms. Schutta noted that the city can purchase through a cooperative purchasing agreement for items or services less than $50,000. This would allow the city to enter into a service agreement with CivicPlus through the GSA contract; meaning that the City does not have to go through an RFP process. Councilmembers asked questions regarding being able to use the Notify Me option to inform residents of when their water or other utilities would be shut off during street reconstruction project, the news flash feature, what would happen during an RFP process, if this was a budgeted item, staff availability for upkeep of the site, the hindrances of the current platform, research done by staff, and reasonableness of the price. Councilmember Duggan suggested that each Councilmember review another city's website that is hosted by CivicPlus and list the positives, negatives, and ideas of what would be important for us. Mayor Krebsbach suggested that if a Councilmember would like to take a look at other sites they do so. She suggested that staff to do some research on price comparisons and features of other vendors, and bring this information back to a future Council meeting. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS Assistant to the Administrator Tamara Schutta made the following announcements: • The Traveling Parks Program had over 20 children at Marie Park on June 15 to play whiffle ball, t -ball and football. On June 17, the program will be at Kensington Park from 10:30 — 11:30 am and Wentworth Park from 12:30 — 1:30 pm. • The Concert -in -the -Park on June 17 will include Jazz On The Prairie Big Band at Market Square. • Sign-up for the 81h Annual Citizens Academy. • Cliff Timm Memorial Fishing Derby is scheduled for Thursday, June 25. COUNCIL COMMENTS Mayor Krebsbach noted that the Mendota Heights Fire Department received an award for Volunteer Fire Department of the Year in the State of Minnesota. Councilmember Duggan moved authorization of placement of a banner saluting the Mendota Heights Fire Department for their great honor, the banner to be paid for from the City Council's budget. Councilmember Norton seconded the motion Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1(Povolny) Councilmember Petschel visited the Pilot Knob site and the sheep were grazing, which was entertaining. However, she was sorry to report that there has been significant vandalism to the sacred stones, which needs to be addressed. June 16, 2015 Mendota Heights City Council Page 7 page 10 Councilmember Duggan noted that Recreation Program Coordinator Sloan Wallgren did a wonderful job organizing the Park Celebration. He requested staff find out what the three buildings are for at the off ramp from 35E north to Highway 13. They are not landscaped to our standards. Mayor Krebsbach expressed her appreciation for everyone's hard work in making the Parks Celebration and 5K Run/Walk such a great success. She also noted that there was a golf tournament this past weekend at the New Ulm Country Club and Mendota Heights residents competed well. ADJOURN Councilmember Duggan moved to adjourn. Councilmember Norton seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1(Povolny) Mayor Krebsbach adjourned the meeting at 8:56 p.m. Sandra Krebsbach Mayor ATTEST: Lorri Smith City Clerk June 16, 2015 Mendota Heights City Council Page 8 page 11 Sb. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Special Meeting Held Tuesday, June 25, 2015 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 9:00 a.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Krebsbach called the meeting to order at 9:02 a.m. Councilmembers present included Duggan, Povolny, and Petschel. Councilmember Norton was absent. Also present were City Administrator Mark McNeill, Planner Nolan Wall, and City Clerk Lorri Smith. Representing Prime Therapeutics were Brian Holmes, Terry Baumgard, Ann Marie Woessner-Collins, and Gregg Fuerstenberg. Representing MN DEED was Jim Gromberg. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Krebsbach presented the agenda for adoption agenda. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1(Norton) Councilmember Povolny moved adoption of the CONSIDERATION OF ASSISTANCE FOR PRIME THERAPEUTICS City Administrator Mark McNeill introduced the company Prime Therapeutics and their proposal for expanding their company into Mendota Heights. The location for this new business is at 1440 - 1444 Northland Drive. Brian Holmes, Senior Director of Enterprise Real Estate and Facilities Operations for Prime Therapeutics, provided background information on the company. This is a national company with more than 3,800 employees nationwide, with approximately 2,000 employees located in Minnesota. The company provides for the on-line filling of pharmaceuticals, benefits, claims resolution, and clinical outcomes and management. The expansion of this business would move some current jobs to this new location in Mendota Heights and also create a minimum of 375 new jobs over the next three years. Prime will be leasing the space which includes a total of 97,500 square feet. The landlord would invest $3.45 million in site and building improvements. Prime would invest a further $4.53 million into the location improvements. Improvements will include exterior and interior modifications for the business. Signage has not yet been discussed. June 25, 2015 Mendota Heights City Council Page I page 12 Jim Gromberg, representing the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, was present to explain the resolutions proposed. Resolution 2015-45, Regarding the Support of a Job Creation Fund Application In Connection with Prime Therapeutics, LLC, grants the Mayor and Council's approval of the project proposed and its application for a rebate from the Job Creation Fund Program. Motion by Councilmember Duggan to approve RESOLUTION 2015-45, REGARDING THE SUPPORT OF A JOB CREATION FUND APPLICATION IN CONNECTION WITH PRIME THERAPEUTICS, LLC. Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1(Norton) Resolution 2015-46, Regarding Prime Therapeutics, LLC, approves the City of Mendota Heights as the legal sponsor for the funding of this project. The City will act as a pass through for the funding. The City is not obligated to provide any matching funds or direct financial participation. The city is not obligated for any performance or reporting requirements beyond the term of the loan. The loan is intended to be forgivable, assuming Prime makes the capital investments proposed and creates the jobs listed over the next three years. Motion by Councilmember Duggan to approve RESOLUTION 2015-46, REGARDING PRIME THERAPEUTICS, LLC. Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1(Norton) ADJOURN Councilmember Povolny moved to adjourn. Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1(Norton) Mayor Krebsbach adjourned the meeting at 9:30 a.m. Sandra Krebsbach Mayor ATTEST: Lorri Smith City Clerk June 25, 2015 Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 page 13 Sc. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Council Workshop Held Monday, June 29, 2015 Mayor Krebsbach called the meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. Councilmembers present included Duggan, Norton, and Petschel. Councilmember Povolny arrived at 1:45 p.m. Staff in attendance included City Administrator Mark McNeill, Assistant to the City Administrator Tammy Schutta, Public Works Director John Mazzitello, Finance Director Kristen Schabacker, Planner Nolan Wall, Recreation Program Coordinator Sloan Wallgren, and City Clerk Lorri Smith. 1. BROADBAND DISCUSSION City Administrator Mark McNeill introduced Craig Ebeling, former Burnsville City Manager, and Lisa Alfson, director of the Dakota County Community Development Agency. They were present to give an overview of the broadband infrastructure study that was completed by Dakota County. Mr. Ebeling stated that one of the things that Dakota County, Dakota County CDA, and the cities of Dakota County have been working on is the installation of a high-speed institutional and commercial internet connection. This is a large undertaking and the CDA is taking the lead. Mr. Ebeling and Ms. Alfson provided background on this initiative and future efforts and plans. The next step in the process is the completion of a Joint Powers Agreement with the entities. When completing the broadband, Mr. Ebeling explained that the layout of the system has been geared towards connecting the government facilities first. The I -Net would be completed first, to be used by the government institutions involved. Councilmembers asked questions regarding lit and dark fibers, what kind of costs would the City be looking at going forward, how this would benefit the City of Mendota Heights, and how some communities are commercializing their public fiber assets. 2. DISCUSSION OF WATER CONTRACT WITH ST. PAUL REGIONAL WATER Public Works Director John Mazzitello and General Manager Steve Schneider from St. Paul Water reviewed the draft agreement to convey the water facilities to St. Paul Water. The current water services agreement is set to expire in November 2015. They reviewed with the Council the proposed agreement which would have no end date. The city could, at any time, claim the system back. It was noted that a representative on the Board of Water Commission represents all of the cities and not only the city they live in. The decisions made by that body are owned by the whole body. Councilmember Petschel stated that she would like to see our residents' bills not increase during the phase in period of this agreement. Alternatives were discussed to make this possible, possibly by reducing the city surcharge. The Council requested an additional clause in the contract to have decision-making authority in any changes made to the exterior modification of the water tower. page 14 The Council asked for the charge for water used for street cleaning to be at a reduced rate. The Council asked for additional revenue from the antenna on the water tower, possibly a 60/40 split. By general consensus of the Council, city staff was directed to continue the negotiations of this contract. 3. PILOT KNOB LOCATION / DOG PARK FUNDING Recreation Coordinator Sloan Wallgren and City Administrator Mark McNeill reviewed the potential Pilot Knob South site, a 3.5 acre parcel, for a temporary dog park. The cost for this is estimated to be $30,000. By consensus, the funding will come from the Special Parks Fund. Residents who live adjacent to this proposed dog park were present to discuss issues with a dog park at this location. Jean Franson, 2170 Pilot Knob Road, and Jacob who was representing Richard Hartz, 2200 Pilot Knob Road, stated they felt it would disrupt the wildlife and take away from the beauty of the area. They thought parking would be an issue on this busy section of road. They would prefer to see the Pilot Knob bluff area extended to this area. Bonnie Resnick, 2251 Copperfield Drive, stated she feels an interim use for this site is a good solution for the dog park. Planner Nolan Wall informed the Council that at the June Planning Commission meeting, the members voted to recommend an ordinance to allow interim uses in the city. Once this ordinance is approved by the City Council, the interim use of this site as a dog park can move forward for approval. 4. VILLAGE LOTS DISCUSSION Planner Nolan Wall reviewed the site plan for The Village area. A meeting was held with a restaurant owner to gather his thoughts on the use of these city owned parcels for a new restaurant site. It was discussed that having no visibility from Highway 110 may be an issue at locating a restaurant at this location. The Council discussed other possible development opportunities for the three city owned properties, including commercial, office building, or residential. By general consensus of the Council, staff was directed to begin the process of marketing the properties for market rate residential use by sending a letter of interest to targeted developers. 5. TECHNOLOGY USE POLICY Assistant to the City Administrator Tamara Schutta presented the proposed Technology Use Policy for all city employees, paid on-call firefighters, contractors, volunteers, and interns. The purpose of the policy is to promote the acceptable use of computer equipment, providing parameters for appropriate personal use of city owned equipment. This policy will be brought to the July 21, 2015 City Council meeting for approval. 6. LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM Mayor Sandra Krebsbach reviewed with the Council a series of positions which are of special interest to the City. These issues will be discussed with our legislators for possible action by the 2016 Minnesota legislature. By general consensus of the Council, the topics were ranked as follows: June 29, 2015 Mendota Heights Council Workshop Page 2 1. The need for the continuation of the Noise Oversight Committee 2. Fiscal Disparities 3. Group Homes 4. Transportation 5. Bonding Request for a special project The workshop adjourned at 4:40 p.m. Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST: Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 15 June 29, 2015 Mendota Heights Council Workshop Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 page 16 Sd. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES June 23, 2015 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 23, 2015 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 p.m. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard Roston, Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, Christine Costello and Ansis Viksnins. Those absent: None. Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall, Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello, and City Attorney Tom Lehmann. Approval ofAzenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval ofMay 26, 2015 Minutes COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 26, 2015, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Hearin -s PLANNING CASE 92015-19 Eileen O'Shaughnessy and Art Perlman Critical Area Permit at 731 Woodridge Drive City Planner Nolan Wall explained that applicants were seeking a Critical Area Permit to construct a fence within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area. The code requires a permit for construction of any structure within the critical area overlay zoning district. Planner Wall shared a site map showing the subject parcel location. He further explained that as a result of a landslide event in June 2014, the applicant received approval directly from the City Council in March 2015 for the required Critical Area Permit, Conditional Use Permit, and Variances in order to allow for construction of a retaining wall and associated soil stabilization. The proposed fence being considered in this case was not included in the original application; therefore, the additional permitting is being sought now. The proposed 3.5 -foot black vinyl fence would be located behind the top edge of the retaining wall to ensure appropriate fall protection. The retaining wall is approximately 17 feet tall at its highest point. The applicant plans to plant vines at the base of the retaining wall, which would eventually June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 1 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 page 17 visually obscure the fence from the road and from the surrounding properties. The proposed fence is compliant with the applicable critical area and residential fence standards; therefore, staff recommended approval of this application. Commissioner Roston recused himself from this issue due to a conflict of interest. Eileen O'Shaughnessy and Art Perlman came forward to answer any additional questions from the Commission. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-19, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT REQUEST FOR A FENCE BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS COMPLIANT WITH THE POLICIES AND STANDARDS OF THE CRITICAL AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT, WITH THE CONDITION THAT A FENCE PERMIT IS APPROVED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED FENCE. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 (Roston) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 7, 2015 meeting. PLANNING CASE 42015-20 Dick Bjorklund Properties, LLC Preliminary Plat at 2511/2525 Condon Court City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was seeking approval of a Preliminary Plat for a subdivision at 2511/2511 Condon Court. The subject parcel is 1.3 acres, which does include a .08 -acre tract of excess right-of-way that was acquired from MnDOT. The parcel currently contains two single-family dwellings with detached garages. The parcels are zoned R-2 and guided for medium -density residential in the Comprehensive Plan. In January 2015, the applicant received approvals for the rezoning and Comprehensive Plan amendment requests that reflect the existing conditions regarding the zoning and land use plan. June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 2 page 18 92 Planner Wall shared an image of the subject parcels and the proposed preliminary plat. He clarified 93 that the applicant is requesting a preliminary plat only at this time and is not requesting a final plat. 94 95 The name of the proposed plat is The Oaks and would create three new lots from the two existing 96 lots and the excess right-of-way that was acquired. A single-family home would be constructed on 97 the northern most lot and two twin -home units would be constructed on the remaining parcel for a 98 total of five dwelling units. The parcel at 2535 Condon Court is not owned by the applicant and is 99 not included as part of the plat. 100 101 All five lots do meet the minimum lot size requirements as well as setback requirements. However, 102 the minimum required lot width is 100 feet, which is measured on the first 30 feet of a lots depth. 103 The intent of that standard is to ensure adequate frontage for access and spacing between dwellings. 104 The intent of this being measured within the first 30 feet is to eliminate narrow slivers of lots next 105 to each other that only meet the lot width standard at the rear lot lines. Therefore, a literal 106 interpretation of the code would disqualify lots one, two, and three. Due to the jog in the front lot 107 lines caused by the Condon Court right-of-way, the frontage road, which is an a -typical situation 108 in the City — it's actually a frontage road that owned and maintained by the City but is actually 109 built within the MnDOT right-of-way (excess MnDOT right-of-way from Dodd Road — a state 110 highway). In this case, there is nothing between the proposed homes and the street besides excess 111 right-of-way. Included the staff report was what was felt to be the de facto code interpretation of 112 what the lot width standard is in this case. Staff believes that, based on the intent, the standard is 113 met — there is no crowding and access is assured. 114 115 Grading and erosion control plans have been provided and would be reviewed in-depth as part of 116 the building permit process. Planner Wall then reviewed the landscape plan. 117 118 Staff recommended approval of this Preliminary Plat request with conditions. 119 120 Commissioners asked questions regarding the MnDOT right-of-way purchase. 121 122 Dick Bjorklund came forward to answer any additional questions from the Commission. 123 124 Chair Field opened the public hearing. 125 126 Mr. Joe Christensen, an attorney representing Mike and Sue Laughlin who own the property at 127 2535 Condon Court, came forward and explained that his clients purchased their property in 2001. 128 It is a certified alcohol treatment center facility with 10 beds. The Laughlin's are not opposed to 129 the Bjorklund proposal; however, they are concerned with some of the impacts that the 130 development may have on their property. He then referenced a letter that was written to Planner 131 Wall [included in the Council packet]. The concerns listed related to drainage, utility, screening, 132 and disruption issues. Attorney Christensen then began a review each of the issues as outlined in 133 the letter. 134 135 Chair Field asked if he was correct in his assumption that, since this request was for a Preliminary 136 Plat and that a Final Plat request would be forthcoming, that City staff would deal with many of 137 the issues outlined in the letter. Planner Wall confirmed that assumption and stated that staff, based June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 3 page 19 138 on the Laughlin's comments, has recommended revisions to the approval conditions that would 139 reflect their concerns. 140 141 Commissioners asked questions regarding a recently adopted ordinance and if that matched the 142 construction hours requested by the Laughlins. 143 144 Dick Bjorklund returned to address the concerns expressed. 145 146 Staff recommended that the concerns and issues expressed be discussed between the two parties 147 and some sort of agreement be obtained and become part of the developer's agreement. Many of 148 the issues did not relate to the Preliminary Plat request. 149 150 Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. 151 152 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO 153 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 154 155 AYES:7 156 NAYS:0 157 158 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO 159 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-20, PRELIMINARY PLAT 160 APPLICATION FOR THE OAKS SUBMITTED BY DICK BJORKLUND PROPERTIES, LLC 161 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 162 1. The proposed plat meets the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code, including proposed uses, 163 lot size, lot width and setbacks. The lot widths for Lots 1, 2, and 3 meet the intent of the Code 164 in terms of access and adequate spacing, even though they do not meet the letter of the Code 165 definition. 166 2. The proposed plat meets the purpose and intent of the Subdivision Code, including grading, 167 drainage, and lot arrangement. 168 AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 169 1. $8,100.00 Park Dedication Fee is to be paid to the City, prior to final plat approval. 170 2. Parties involved with development of the platted area. This will include a detailed description 171 of municipal utility installation, landscaping and building and driveway placement. 172 3. All grading, construction activity, and stormwater management facilities associated with future 173 development of the platted area will be in compliance with all Federal, State, and Local 174 Regulations and Codes, as well as in compliance with the City. 175 4. Construction activity will be in compliance with restrictions outlined in City Code. 176 5. A final plat is submitted for City Council review. 177 6. A final landscape plan is provided, including planting sizes, as part of the building plans. 178 179 AYES:7 180 NAYS:0 181 182 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 7, 2015 meeting. 183 June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 4 page 20 184 PLANNING CASE #2015-21 185 Saint Thomas Academy 186 Variance at 949 Mendota Heights Road 187 188 City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was requesting a variance for the sign size 189 requirements for a non-residential use within a residential zone. The subject property is 190 approximately 43 acres and contains the Saint Thomas Academy campus. The applicant proposes 191 to erect the proposed sign on the control room/press box structuring which overlooks the athletic 192 field/track facing Mendota Heights Road. The structure was approved by Conditional Use Permit 193 in 1994, as part of Planning Case 94-04. The proposed sign exceeds the size requirement. 194 195 Planner Wall explained the standards to be applied when reviewing a variance request and how 196 this request meets those standards. Staff recommended approval of this variance request. 197 198 Commissioners asked questions regarding the size of this sign when compared with other 199 educational institutions in the area and if there has been any consideration given to creating a new 200 zoning district. 201 202 Mr. Paul Solmon, Director of Facilities at Saint Thomas Academy came forward to answer any 203 additional questions from the Commission regarding the purpose of the sign. 204 205 Chair Field opened the public hearing. 206 207 Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public 208 hearing. 209 210 Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. 211 212 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 213 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 214 215 AYES: 7 216 NAYS: 0 217 218 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO 219 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-21, VARIANCE REQUEST TO 220 EXCEED THE SIGN SIZE REQUIREMENTS IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT 221 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 222 1. The subject parcel is significantly larger than standard residential properties, which restricts 223 the ability to read signage from the surrounding streets. 224 2. The maximum sign area requirement imposed in the R-1 District better reflects the signage 225 needs of residential uses, rather than institutional uses, and is unique to the subject property. 226 3. A sign in the proposed location meeting the maximum sign area requirement would likely be 227 too small for its intended purpose due to the expansive setback from Mendota Heights Road 228 and presents a practical difficulty for the applicant. June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 5 page 21 229 4. Similar signage consistent with the size of the proposed sign has been approved for other 230 buildings on campus and for other institutional uses in the City. 231 5. The proposed sign will not negatively impact the surrounding properties 232 AND WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT OBTAIN A SIGN PERMIT. 233 234 Several commissioners commented that potential amendments to the Code to address institutional 235 uses in residential zones should be considered by the City Council in the near future. 236 237 AYES:7 238 NAYS:0 239 240 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 7, 2015 meeting. 241 242 PLANNING CASE #2015-23 243 Sean Doyle and John Karas 244 Lot Split and Variance at 650 North Freeway Road 245 246 City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was requesting a Lot Split and Variance for 247 the subject parcel located at 650 North Freeway Road. The subject parcel is approximately 51,000 248 square feet, zoned R-1, and guided as Low Density Residential Development on the 249 Comprehensive Plan. Planner Wall shared an image of the property location. 250 251 If approved, a garage addition would be constructed on the existing single-family dwelling and a 252 new single-family dwelling would be constructed on the easterly parcel. Planner Wall then 253 explained the R-1 district lot standards and how the proposed properties fit within those standards. 254 The existing driveway accessing the attached side loaded garage on Parcel A would be removed. 255 Since the existing garage would be inaccessible without crossing Parcel B, which would be a 256 nonconformity, the applicant proposes to construct a new garage addition on the front of the house. 257 258 Staff included requirements for building permit approval and a certificate of occupancy issuance 259 prior to the recording of the subdivision as condition of approval in order to ensure that the non - 260 conformity is addressed as part of this application. 261 262 The proposed parcels, the existing dwelling, and the proposed garage addition all meet the R-1 263 district requirements. 264 265 Commissioners asked questions regarding the removal of the driveway, the addition of a condition 266 that the old driveway must be removed prior to the issuance of a building permit, and if the removal 267 of the driveway would address the issue with the slope. 268 269 In reference to the variance request, Planner Wall explained that the code requires a subdivision 270 to be designed so that no construction or grading will be conducted on slopes greater than 25% in 271 grade. Parcel B does contain slopes greater than 25% within the proposed building pad area that 272 would be disturbed by construction and grading activities for the proposed dwelling. 273 June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 6 page 22 274 Staff feels that the intent of the standard is most likely to protect and preserve natural slopes from 275 development. He then went through the three standards that apply to a variance request and how 276 this request fulfills those standards. Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello added 277 his comments on how this request would be in compliance with the intent of the Code. 278 279 Staff recommended approval of the subdivision and variance requests with conditions. 280 281 Commissioners asked questions regarding the Code that addresses slopes differentiating between 282 natural and man-made slopes and why the extension on the deadline. 283 284 Mr. John Karas and Mr. Sean Doyle came forward to answer any additional questions from the 285 Commission regarding the plans for the driveway and the abandoned garage, and plans to address 286 the sloping issues when removing the driveway. 287 288 Chair Field opened the public hearing. 289 290 Mr. Dan Norman, 1937 South Lane, commented that if were to be asked if he wants a structure to 291 be located near his home his answer would be no but that would be the Commission's decision. 292 Regarding the standard that the request "will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood," 293 Mr. Norman asked for an example of something that would alter the character. 294 295 Mr. Patrick Derosia, 641 South Freeway Road, expressed his concerns about the building of a 2015 296 home near homes built in the 1960's or 1970's would definitely change the character of the 297 neighborhood. Also, the majority of the lots in the area are much larger than the proposed lots 298 would be. 299 300 Mr. John Karas returned to address the concerns raised. 301 302 Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. 303 304 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, 305 TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 306 307 AYES:7 308 NAYS:0 309 310 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 311 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-23, SUBDIVISION AND 312 VARIANCE REQUESTS, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 313 1. The proposed subdivision request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is 314 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 315 2. The proposed garage addition to the existing dwelling addresses the nonconformity caused by 316 the proposed subdivision request and subsequent construction of a new single-family home. 317 3. The impacted slopes over 25% appear to be man-made as part of construction and 318 reinforcement of the existing driveway. June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 7 page 23 319 4. The impacted slopes over 25% are less than the current 33% maximum industry standard for 320 constructed slopes and comprise only 5.3% of the subject parcel. 321 AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 322 1. The existing driveway serving the attached garage is removed, and a building permit is 323 approved and certificate of occupancy issued for the proposed garage on Parcel A, prior to the 324 subdivision being recorded by Dakota County. 325 2. Park dedication fee in the amount of $2,700, in lieu of land, is collected after City Council 326 approval and before being recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits 327 by the City. 328 3. Street reconstruction assessment fee in the amount of $3,700, as part of North Freeway Road 329 Project 2002-02, is collected after City Council approval and before being recorded by Dakota 330 County or issuance of any additional permits by the City. 331 4. The applicant shall dedicate the following drainage and utility easements on both parcels to be 332 denoted on the Certificate of Survey submitted to Dakota County: 10 -foot wide along the front 333 property lines and 5 -foot wide along the side and rear property lines. 334 5. Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a 335 building permit. 336 6. The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with associated 337 easements, subject to review and approval by the City Engineering Department as part of any 338 building permit application. 339 7. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and 340 local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City's Land Disturbance 341 Guidance Document. 342 343 Commissioners made comments on why they were in support of this application; it satisfied the 344 standards applicable for a variance request and the slope appears to be man-made and not an 345 alteration of a natural slope. 346 347 AYES:7 348 NAYS:0 349 350 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 7, 2015 meeting. 351 352 PLANNING CASE 42015-22 353 City of Mendota Heights 354 Proposed City Code Amendment Concerning Interim Uses 355 356 Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City of Mendota Heights was considering amendments to 357 Title 12, Chapter 1, Article B and L of the City Code concerning interim uses. He then provided 358 background information on the request and briefly highlighted the proposed amendments. 359 360 Staff recommended that the Commission review the proposed amendments and make a 361 recommendation to the City Council. 362 363 Commissioners asked questions regarding the rationale for number 7 that reads, "The use has 364 ceased for a continuous period of at least six (6) months". June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 8 page 24 365 Chair Field opened the public hearing. 366 367 Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public 368 hearing. 369 370 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO 371 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 372 373 AYES:7 374 NAYS:0 375 376 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 377 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF DRAFT ORDINANCE 479, AS REFERENCED IN 378 PLANNING CASE 2015-22 AS PROPOSED BY STAFF. 379 380 AYES:7 381 NAYS:0 382 383 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 7, 2015 meeting. 384 385 Adjournment 386 387 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO 388 ADJOURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:23 P.M. 389 390 AYES:7 391 NAYS:0 June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 9 page 25 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES June 23, 2015 The meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, June 23, 2015 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 8:35 p.m. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard Roston, Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, Christine Costello and Ansis Viksnins. Those absent: None. Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall, Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello, City Administrator Mark McNeill, and City Attorney Tom Lehmann. Approval ofAzenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Hearin -s CASE 92015-18 STEP Academy Appeal from zoning determination to allow a charter school use at 1345 Mendota Heights in the Industrial Zoning District Chair Litton Field, Jr. noted that all of the commissioners had received and reviewed the packet of materials in advance of the meeting. City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant is seeking appeal for an interpretation of text in the City Code concerning the definition of a trade school. The City Code designates the Planning Commission as the Board of Zoning Appeals. The appellant in this case, STEP Academy, is a charter school serving grades six through twelve. Staff was contacted by representatives of the appellant about leasing space at 1345 Mendota Heights Road, which is zoned industrial and is currently occupied by Sanford -Brown College. Based on staff interpretation, they were informed that the proposed use was not permitted and would require a code amendment to locate within the Industrial District. Representatives from the appellant then submitted a formal request for a zoning determination based on the proposed use being considered a trade school under the existing definition. Staff responded that the use was still not permitted and a formal appeal was filed for consideration before the Board of Zoning Appeals in compliance with City Code. Related correspondence was included in Articles A, B, and C of the packet. June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting - DRAFT Page 10 page 26 According to the Code, a trade school is defined as; An educational institution, either private or public, which offers classes and training to full and/orpart time students including, but not limited to, technical, mechanical, services and computing fields. Based on this definition, past City Council determinations, it remains the City's position that a charter school is not intended to be included in the trade school definition and is therefore not permitted as a nonmanufacturing use within the Industrial District. A charter school use would be consistent with the use categories "public and parochial schools," which are permitted uses within the residential zoning districts, as well as "colleges and schools, public and private", which are permitted within the B -IA Business Park District. Planner Wall continued by stating that if a charter school were to be included as part of the trade school definition, staff feels that other institutional uses, regardless of grade level, may also qualify under this definition. It there were the case, it would seem difficult to come to conclude that a K- 6 could somehow be construed to be a trade school simply because the definition does not include a grade level and they offer classes and training in various fields as part of the curriculum. Staff contends that the intent of the existing trade school definition is to further qualify the companion permitted use in the Industrial District, which is "trade schools and colleges or universities." In addition to the Industrial District, trade schools are also conditional uses in the B-3 General Business Zone, which would also allow for charter schools if this appeal is granted in this case and ultimately upheld by the City Council. Trade school uses that have been occupied the Industrial District are post -secondary institutions and the use category, as was stated, includes colleges and universities, both of which are post- secondary in nature, and were added by amendment as well as defined along with trade schools in 2004 to recognize the change for Brown Institute to Brown College when they began to offer four- year degrees. The Industrial District does contain a mix of land uses; the vast majority of those uses are office and industrial. A determination that would allow a charter school use to be permitted by right in the Industrial District may allow for proliferation of other educational institutions that were not envisioned as part of the long-term planning for the area. In an effort to maintain the industrial and business character of the Industrial District, the City is now undertaking a redevelop planning process to ensure its long-term success. Therefore, careful consideration should be taken when considering allowing educational institutions, especially as permitted uses. Charter schools interested in operating within the Industrial District have approached the City Council in the past. At those times the parties were informed that a code amendment would be required for the use. The Council raised the following potential land use issues for charter schools in the Industrial District: • Potential insufficient off-street parking • Lack of on-site recreational opportunities for students • Bus and student traffic • Proliferation of other educational uses within the Industrial District • Land use conflicts with the existing and future uses June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting - DRAFT Page 11 page 27 • Maintaining the industrial character of the Industrial Park While this appeal stands on its own merits, it is important to note how past Council's have considered charter school uses within the Industrial District and; therefore, why staff is making the aforementioned determination in this case. Staff feels it further reinforces the potential issues that could be created by allowing a charter school as a permitted use in the Industrial District. As for the code amendment process itself, staff has informed all interested parties inquiring about charter school uses within the Industrial District that a formal code amendment process is required to consider the use. If an applicant were to make such a request, staff would recommend potentially that the use be considered as a conditional use or potentially an interim use, if ultimately adopted by the City Council; but not as a permitted use. A conditional use permit or an interim use permit requires a public hearing and that reasonable conditions be placed on the use based on potential negative impacts to surrounding properties and the public. Staff continues to recommend a code amendment as the most equitable and transparent process for consideration of a charter school use in the Industrial District. Staff recommended that the Board of Zoning Appeals consider denying or granting the appeal from a zoning determination in this case and to forward that recommendation to the City Council. Regardless of action on the appeal, the decision will be forwarded to the City Council who may choose to review or revise the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals in compliance with the City Code. Board members asked questions regarding the current existence of schools within the Industrial District that the City identifies as trade schools, the existence of any other schools of any kind within the Industrial District, post -secondary not being part of the definition of a trade school, the reason why universities and colleges were added to the amendment was due to Brown Institute being changed to Brown College, and references in state law to "trade and/or vocational" schools implying post -secondary. Chair Field opened the public hearing. The appellant came forward and identified herself as Ms. Cindy Lavorato, Attorney for STEP Academy. She raised a procedural issue that, in her view, deprives the Planning Commission of jurisdiction to make a decision in this matter having to do with the 60 -day time limit that, in her view, has not been adhered to by the City. She provided documents to substantiate her position in this regard. City Attorney Tom Lehmann explained that this procedural issue is outside of the Board's prevue for tonight. If this is an issue they wish to raise at some point for further legal action, they may do so. The Board can receive what she has, but it is outside of the item before the Board tonight. June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting - DRAFT Page 12 page 28 Attorney Lavorato continued by stating that this is not a procedural issue, but a jurisdictional one. The City has lost its ability to deny this request because it did not take action within the 60 -days provided by State Law 15.99. The request for determination was made of Planner Wall on April 17, 2015. It is now June 23, 2015. The 60 days have elapsed and the City has not taken action to approve or disapprove the application under 15.99; the lack of action on the part of the City becomes an approval. Attorney Lehmann replied that this is an issue that may have to be decided in court should the applicant wish to proceed along those lines. It is not for this body to make that determination. If the applicant wishes to proceed along those lines it may be moot to even have the hearing tonight. It is not this body's responsibility to decide whether or not the City has met the 60 -day requirement. Time is of the essence since the school really needs to get the lease negotiated and completed by the end of July. Attorney Lavorato stated that she does not believe this is a matter for the court and does not believe that it is a matter for the City Council. If the statute was looked at then it would be determined that the City does not have jurisdiction to decide this issue. If the City is not prepared to make a decision on the jurisdictional issue, then she would ask for the liberty for to present the information of the people that have been waiting this evening for two hours already to provide. Mr. Richard Schadegg, 3373 Rolling Hills Drive, Eagan is the property manager of 1345 Mendota Heights Road and is in support of the sublease to STEP Academy. Brown College has been the tenant since before the building was purchased. Millions of dollars was spent to transform what was an office/showroom building into classrooms that are fully equipped with audiovisual equipment, technology, etc. It has been operating as a school and they would like to see that use continue going forward. Brown College is going to suspend operations in Minnesota as soon as they graduate their current class of students. The property was purchased subject to a 10 -year lease by Brown College and they have the option to terminate that lease agreement in a couple of years. From an economic standpoint, the owner has a strongly invested interest in seeing that this continues as a school. If they can continue operations with STEP Academy without losing any income or having to retrofit the building, obviously has an enormous impact economically for the owner. When asked if he had any comments in regards to the revision of the zoning definition, he replied that he has no expertise in this area and would not feel qualified to comment. Board members asked questions regarding the capacity of the building for students. Ms. Sandra Olmstead, 3621 Oak Creek Drive West, Vadnais Heights is the Vice -chair of the Board of Directors of STEP Academy. She is also currently a professor at Augsburg College and has a PhD in Medicinal Chemistry, which she feels makes her a natural fit to be a part of STEP Academy. She gave a brief background on the school and its mission to prepare students for careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields. Its mission is to make sure that the senior class is entirely in PSEO (Post -Secondary Enrollment Options) so that a year of college is already behind them when they leave. There are only a total of 200-250 students in grades six through twelve; most of them are in the middle years of eight and nine because the school has only been in operation for three years. They are currently leasing a building in Inver Grove Heights that was an old June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting - DRAFT Page 13 page 29 elementary school. It is inadequate for the curriculum they have; it has no wet labs, has retrofitted technology throughout the building, and it is too small. They were thrilled when the opportunity to move to the Brown College building because it is already wired, has the necessary lab equipment, etc. She continued to provide additional amenities and reasons why this building would be perfect for their needs. Board members asked questions regarding additional classes available for the students, testing, certificates or diplomas available, percentage of graduates that continue onto college, and they clarified that the issue before them this evening is the zoning — not the curriculum, classes, or students of the school, or of the effectiveness of the school itself. They also asked questions regarding the school's sponsorship. Mr. Chad Blihovde, 3101 34th Avenue, Minneapolis, of Java Properties was representing STEP Academy Charter School and their leasing of the charter school site. He stated that as far as parking goes, by the time a lot of these students reach twelfth grade are in college and do not have a lot of demand for parking. They have been looking for over a year for a site for this school. It is very difficult to find a site like this one — it is ready to go as a charter school — a school set up as high tech as this one. It is an incredible opportunity to teach children. Board members asked Attorney Lavorato if there were any assurances that the sought after lease would only be for five years. She replied that the charter itself and the authorizer is only for five years so the school cannot extend itself into any sort of commitments or lease agreements or contracts that extend beyond five years because they don't have the authority to do so. There is a natural legal limitation on the extent of the lease. The school is willing to provide the City whatever assurances needed that it would be no more than a five-year lease. She also stated that she understands the City's need to do the planning around the Industrial District, she has looked at the City Council minutes and understands what the political context is for that request. As she views it, everybody wins if the school is allowed to move in and have a five-year lease. The City could move forward with its zoning amendment to clarify that trade school means post secondary institutions — that takes care of the issue Planner Wall was concerned about in terms of the possible proliferation of K-12 schools in the Industrial District. Everybody would win if this were done this way: • The City gets to do its long-term planning • The school gets to have space for five years • Sanford -Brown gets to sub -lease • The property owner can maximize the use of the property • The City could then clarify the ordinance as intended to exclude all uses that are not post- secondary Chair Field clarified that the focus in this meeting is the appeal of the zoning administrator's determination. Attorney Lavorato replied that she was perfectly prepared to address the underlining legal issues, which involve the interpretation that the City has made of this zoning ordinance. Yes, the zoning ordinance is one way to challenge the City's action but it is not the only way. The zoning provisions states very clearly that an appeal can be made from any order, requirement, permit, or decision made by the zoning administrator under this chapter and June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting - DRAFT Page 14 page 30 pertaining to any interpretation of this text of this chapter. An amendment to the Code does not have to take place in order to get the City's interpretation challenged. They asked for a formal opinion on April 17, they heard back on April 24, she appealed that determination on May 14; in the meantime the City went forward with a proposed ordinance amendment; and they were not put on the schedule for a hearing until this evening. Once everyone in attendance has been heard from she would like to continue with the legal arguments made in their materials and would like to respond to what staff has represented and what City Attorney Lehmann has argued to. She believes there is a very significant legal issue here for this commission to grapple with. In her view, if an ordinance is not clear they are to be strictly construed against the City in favor of the property owner if there is any ambiguity. There is clearly ambiguity here or the City would not have had the need to come forward with a proposed amendment to clarify that K-12 is not included. In her view, legally, whether the time limit or with the interpretation, this use is not clearly excluded. In the absence of a clear exclusion, you have to go with the property owner here. The board members requested that Attorney Lavorato focus on the dispositive issue; how is this a trade school. Attorney Lavorato stated that, in her opinion, the dispositive issue is how has the City defined this in a way that expressly excludes K-12 schools. When pressed she described a trade school, under the City Code, as "An educational institution, either private or public, which offers classes and training to full and/or part time students including, but not limited to, technical, mechanical, services and computing fields " and explained that the STEP Charter School is an educational institution, public or private, offers classes and training, has full time students, and includes classes in technical, mechanical, services, and computing fields. It meets all of those definitions. Any public school in the State of Minnesota has to meet the academic standards and benchmarks that are established by the Commissioner of Education. It does not mean that a school, having that requirement, cannot focus specifically on subject areas, themes, and content areas that are specific. Many charter schools do just that. Just because the charter school meets the definition and requirements of the state's academic standards does not mean that it is not focused on aspects that are specifically addressed in the definition. Board members asked whether every high school in the state teaches computer science, teaches mathematics, teaches some form of science and have a laboratory. They also questioned her interpretation of what is conventional high school education and putting it into a box of a trade school, which in common understanding and usage is a school that teaches the trades — and a common definition of trades is mechanics, carpenters, skilled workers — how high level high school education in stem subjects and call them trades. The grade level has no bearing on this and whether the City wants to change its code to specify grade level does not contribute to the ambiguity at all nor does it necessarily cure an ambiguity. Mr. Abdullahi Ahmed, Board chair of STEP Academy and a parent of a student in seventh grade, explained the reasons why they chose the Sanford -Brown College building as a location for the STEP Academy. June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting - DRAFT Page 15 page 31 Mr. Solmon Ali, 13665 Hanover Court, Apple Valley, a PSEO student at STEP Academy came forward and explained what he has learned at STEP Academy and his belief that it does a great job of getting students ready for college. Attorney Lavorato returned to respond to the staff report: • "Based on the existing City Code provisions and past City Council determinations" — the City Council in the City has never been presented with a decision on whether charter schools are permitted. They have been approached for informal feedback but there has never been a finding precedence that has been made by City Council. • ". . . a determination that allows this use to be permitted by right in the Industrial District may allow for proliferation of other educational institutions that were not envisioned as part of the long-term planning for the area'— she feels that schools would have to show that the mission of the school, like STEP Academy, is to prepare students for a particular trade in technology or science or mathematics. Also, if the proposed amendment goes forward this would be a non -issue. • The land use discussion in the staff report shows that the Industrial District currently allows a mix of permitted conditional and accessory uses. She also noted that the Exhibit E clearly indicates that District 197, as recently as 2000, operated community education programs in the Industrial District. • Under the land use tables adult daycare is permitted in the Industrial District. She does not understand how adult daycare in terms of the concerns raised by the Commission, is any different than a K-12 school. • Students at STEP Academy in Inver Grove Heights could also be enrolled at Sanford - Brown in the PSEO program and that would be permitted under the City's code. However, the same STEP Academy students, taking the same courses, cannot have their school located in the Industrial District. • The City has repeatedly felt that the appropriate procedure in this case is to require a code amendment. She disagreed as there are many ways to challenge City actions and this is only one of them. STEP Academy did request in writing on April 17 a determination on whether this lease would be permitted. There was no requirement that the school go a lengthy and probably difficult process of securing a code amendment. • Referring to her June 17 letter, Attorney Lavorato reiterated her legal arguments with explanations. BOARD MEMBER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER COSTELLO, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 BOARD MEMBER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MAGNUSON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2015-44 DENYING AN APPEAL FROM A ZONING DETERMINATION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. STEP Academy is not a trade school, college, or university. June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting - DRAFT Page 16 page 32 2. STEP Academy is not a trade school because it provides a general college preparatory curriculum rather than the common and ordinary understanding of a trade school, which is a vocational school. 3. STEP Academy is not a college or university because it does not confer post -secondary degrees. Board member Hennes stated that he would vote against this motion because the City has not done a good job of defining what a trade school is or any other kind of a school. He believed that the appellant made a pretty good case. Board member Magnuson supported the motion because she believes that STEP Academy, although she was very impressed with the school, their curriculum, and the students; she does not think that STEP Academy can fit into the definition of a trade school. Attorney Lavorato did everything she could to make that case but in the end it's putting a square peg into a round hole and it just doesn't fit. She believes that a code amendment could solve the problem and she would be open to a code amendment; she has no problem with a charter school being in the Industrial District if that is where they choose to be. But she does not think that as a matter of law it fits the definition of a trade school. Board member Roston proposed a friendly amendment to the motion, which is "the proposed use is also not conditionally permitted in Section 12-1-G-1 or 12-1-G-2." Board member Viksnins agreed to the friendly amendment. Board member Roston continued by saying that he is conflicted as he would love to see this use in the area and he is not opposed of this use — either personally or in his role as a Planning Commissioner — but he is stuck on the language of the ordinance. He will support the motion but solely because that is what is required of him under the ordinance. He would love to come up with a way to make this work for the school. He agrees with staff that this would require a code amendment. Board member Viksnins stated that it gives him no pleasure to make this motion; however, his read of the ordinance is pretty clear. STEP Academy is just not a trade school. He agreed with all of the comments made and believes this is a very impressive school. Chair Field echoed all of the comments and expressed his wish that there could be a way to do it; however, given the confines of the application or in this case the appeal in front of them their hands are tied. Chair Field called for the vote denying an appeal from a zoning determination based on the four findings of fact: AYES: 6 NAYS: 1 (HENNES) Chair Field noted that this opinion would be forwarded to the City Council at their meeting on Tuesday, July 7, 2015. The City Council does have the option to review or revise the decision of June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting - DRAFT Page 17 page 33 the Board of Appeals. Based on that aspect of it and based on code requirements that a public hearing be held in order for the Council to take action if they so chose on this item, staff would go ahead and potentially notice that public hearing for July 7th. Staff can meet the deadlines and that is their intention at this point. Board member Roston asked if they wanted to pull out all of the stops and figure out if they had the political and practical support to amend the ordinance as soon as they could to make sure to accommodate the time schedule, what could be done as a City to make that happen on time. City Attorney Tom Lehmann indicated that would also have to go through the City Council. Staff could get a sense of that with the regards to the hearing on July 7th. Planner Nolan Wall stated that he would leave that up to the City Council. Board member Magnuson stated that, in the past, when there have been issues where it was thought that code amendments would be appropriate, recommendations were attached recommending that the Council consider a code amendment to do a certain thing. Planner Wall replied that this would be helpful and he and City Administrator Mark McNeill could pass along the Planning Commission comments and sentiments indicating that there was a desire for a code amendment and to expedite it as quickly as possible. BOARD MEMBER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER VIKSNINS, TO ASK THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER EXPEDITING A HEARING AND THEN AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME AND WITH PROPER PROCEDURE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE CONSIDER PERMITTING OR CONDITIONALLY PERMITTING A CHARTER SCHOOL IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. Discussions were held in favor of and in opposition to the motion. BOARD MEMBER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER HENNES, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZE THE DRAFTING OF AN AMENDMENT FOR AN INTERIM USE OF A CHARTER SCHOOL IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT QUICKLY. Board Member Noonan recommended the motion be amended to read "use of property in the Industrial District for a school." Board member Roston agreed to the friendly amendment. To clarify, BOARD MEMBER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO AUTHORIZE THE DRAFTING OF AN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE. AYES: 2 (ROSTON, HENNES) NAYS: 5 (NOONAN, FIELD, MAGNUSON, COSTELLO, VIKSNINS) Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals expressed a desire to find a way to accomplish this, but acknowledged that, given the current appeal in front of them, there was nothing they could do to address it. June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting - DRAFT Page 18 page 34 Adiournment COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO ADJOURN THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING AT 10:02 P.M. June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting - DRAFT Page 19 page 35 PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES June 23, 2015 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission continued on Tuesday, June 23, 2015 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 10:02 p.m. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard Roston, Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, Christine Costello and Ansis Viksnins. Those absent: None. Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall, Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello, City Administrator Mark McNeill, and City Attorney Tom Lehmann. Verbal Review Planner Wall gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE 92015-15 Ordinance 478 concerning minimum requirements for single-family residential districts • Adopted by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission PLANNING CASE 92015-17 Conditional Use Permit, Planned Unit Development Amendments — Lemay Shores Development • Appealed to have the public hearing directly in front of City Council • City Council approved the Conditional Use Permit to Amend a Final Planned Unit Development Plan, Final Plat, and Development Agreement StaffAnnouncements City Council will be having a workshop meeting on July 29. The only Planning Commission item will be to continue discussion on marketing the city -owned lots at the Village of Mendota Heights development. City Council did approve the Project Scope and Contract for the Redevelopment Planning Grant for the Industrial District. Adiournment COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO ADJOURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 10:07 P.M. June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting (continued) - DRAFT Page 20 page 36 Se. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota y 118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com , T mCITY OF MENDDTA HEIGHTS DATE: July 7, 2015 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Critical Area Permit at 731 Woodridge Drive BACKGROUND The applicants are seeking a critical area permit to construct a fence on the subject parcel within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area. The applicants received approval from the City Council in March 2015 for a critical area permit, conditional use permit, and variances for construction of a retaining wall and associated soil stabilization. The proposed fence was not included as part of the applications in March, therefore an additional permit is required at this time. The proposed 3.5 -foot tall, black vinyl fence would be located on top of the to -be -constructed concrete retaining wall, which is approximately 17 feet tall, to ensure appropriate fall protection. The proposed project is compliant with all applicable Code provisions. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at the June 23 meeting; there were no public comments. BUDGETIMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended approval of the critical area permit, with conditions, as described in Planning Case 2015-19. If the City Council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion adopting RESOLUTION 2015-47 APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AT 731 WOODRIDGE DRIVE. This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 37 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2015-47 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AT 731 WOODRIDGE DRIVE WHEREAS, Eileen O'Shaughnessy and Art Perlman have applied for a critical area permit to erect a fence at 731 Woodridge Drive as proposed in Planning Case 2015-19 and described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting on June 23, 2015. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the critical area permit as proposed in Planning Case 2015-19 is hereby approved based on the findings of fact that the proposed project is compliant with the policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the critical area permit as proposed in Planning Case 2015-19 is hereby approved with the condition that a fence permit is approved by the City prior to construction of the proposed project. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this seventh day of July, 2015. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST: Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 38 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com , T mCITY OF MENDIDTA HEIGHTS DATE: June 23, 2015 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2015-19 Critical Area Permit APPLICANT: Eileen O'Shaughnessy and Art Perlman PROPERTY ADDRESS: 731 Woodridge Drive ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: August 2, 2015 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants are seeking a critical area permit to construct a fence on the subject parcel within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area. Title 12-3-5 of the City Code requires a critical area permit for all development activities requiring zoning approval. BACKGROUND As a result of a landslide event on June 19, 2014, an approximately 75 -foot by 45 -foot portion of the subject parcel's rear yard slid onto Highway 13. The applicants received approval from the City Council in March 2015 for a critical area permit, conditional use permit, and variances for construction of a retaining wall and associated soil stabilization. In order to expedite the review process, the public hearing was held before the City Council and not the Planning Commission. The proposed fence being considered in this case was not included as part of the applications in March, therefore an additional permit is required at this time. ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan The subject parcel is guided LR Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicants' request to construct a fence is consistent with the continued use as a single-family residence. Critical Area Overlay District According to Title 12-3-2 of the City Code, the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is: ---to prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national resource to promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas, to preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an essential element in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems... Theproposed 3.5 -foot tall, black vinyl fence would be located on top of the to -be -constructed concrete retaining wall, which is approximately 17 feet tall, to ensure appropriate fall protection (see attached plans). page 39 According to the applicants, vines planted at the base of the retaining will eventually visually obscure the fence in compliance with the Critical Area standards. In addition, no soil disturbance or vegetation removal will occur, beyond what is required for the approved retaining wall construction project, and the proposed fence is compliant with the 6 -foot height and 30% opacity requirements for residential zoning districts. INTERAGENCY REVIEW In addition to the public and private property owners within 350 feet of the subject parcel, public hearing notices and application materials were sent to the following agencies for review and comment: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) Acknowledged receipt of the application request and indicated they had no comments. City of Lilydale and City of St. Paul Parks and Recreation Department As of June 17, no comments had been received from either agency on this case. ALTERNATIVES Approval of the Critical Area Permit request for a fence based on the findings of fact that the proposed project is compliant with the policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District, with the condition that a fence permit is approved by the City prior to construction of the proposed project. 2. Denial of the Critical Area Permit request for a fence based on the findings of fact that the application does not meet the policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District. CIf 3. Table the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Critical Area Permit request for the proposed fence based on the findings of fact that the proposed project is compliant with the policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District with the condition that a fence permit is approved by the City prior to construction of the proposed project (Alternative 1). MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Aerial site map 2. Planning applications, including supporting materials 9'. Planning Case 2015-19 City of 731 Woodbridge Drive(b M Mendota 0 4o Date: 6/15/2015 Heights SCALE IN FEET -'Alpl J _AMP-1� t ^ I- �" Wena.mm it v, GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. Letter of Intent Critical Area Permit page 41 My husband, Art Perlman, and I are seeking a Critical Area Permit in order to construct a chain link fence. We live at 731 Woodridge Drive in Mendota Heights. The rear of the property slopes steeply down to the state Highway 13 and is naturally wooded with a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs and other vegetation. Earlier in the year we applied for, and were granted, a Critical Area Permit, Conditional Use Permit, and a Critical Area Variance in order to construct a retaining wall at the rear of our property to repair and stabilize an area of the slope that failed, causing a landslide, on June 19, 2014. At the time of the application we learned that a fence at the top of the retaining wall would not be required by code, and decided in the interest of expediency we would defer decisions regarding the fence until a later time. We have now decided that, in the interest of safety, there should be a fence at the top of the wall. The area of the retaining wall that faces Highway 13 will be 17' tall and the resulting backfilled slope behind it will be considerably less steep than the existing slope. It is not out of the question that someone might attempt to climb down from above. A fence could prevent a fall over the top edge of the wall. The fence that we propose would run the length of the retaining wall and be 3 1/z feet tall. The fencing material would be black vinyl coated chain link with fence posts spaced 10 feet apart. In time we expect that vines, which will be planted at the base of the retaining wall will help to obscure the fence visually. The fence will be visible from the highway, but not from neighboring yards. Thank you for your consideration, Eileen O'Shaughnessy page 42 M2 NAIENDOTA HE A Property Address/Street Location: Applicant Name: E feep, os� Applicant E -Mail Addre Applicant Mailing Addr( Property Owner Name: 12 0T441-,Pie�c,L_Phone: (oS Property Owner Mailing Address:]?z( Me_pidA A�;, Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) lira GI A - R *P—,:i i sri e (,- e- A L a t, A 'S ( i t- u e %, j AJ(,j, -7 16 c) '7 0 act of o Type of Request: L3 Rezoning LJ Conditional Use Permit LJ Conditional Use Permit for PUD LJ Variance LJ Wetlands Permit LJ Prelim inary/Final Plat Approval LJ Subdivision Approval '.Ef Critical Area Permit LJ Comprehensive Plan Amendment LJ Code Amendment LJ Lot Split LJ Other I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours. Signature of Applicant Y J Date Signature 9( OvA e Date ignature of Owner (if more than one) Date Planning Application (modified 112812014) Page 1 of 1 &//A f1A page 43 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452J650 phone 1 651A52.8940 fax wwwrnendotamheight-"o) n CITY OF NAENOOTA HEIGHTS. CRITICAL AREA PERMIT REQUEST APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: ® Dated original of all the materials checked must be submitted by the end of the business day the Monday before the first Tuesday of the month. ® If all original materials are 11 x 17 or smaller — only submit originals. • If materials are larger than 11 x 17, please provide 24 copies, folded to 8 Y2 x 11. • Any drawing in color — must submit 24 copies. The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: Fee, as included in Fee Schedule (check payable to City of Mendota Heights) NOTE: Planning Application fees do not cover building permit fees, utilities, or other fees which may be required for you to complete your project 0 Completed Application Form (only original needs to be submitted). 56 Letter of Intent. Site Plan, prepared to a scale appropriate to the size of the project and suitable for the review to be performed, including: � Location of the property, including such information as the name and numbers of adjoining roads, railroads, existing subdivisions, or other landmarks. tff Existing topography as indicated on a contour map having a contour interval no greater than two feet (2') per contour; the contour map shall also clearly delineate any bluff line, all streams, including intermittent streams and swales, rivers, water bodies, and wetlands located on the site. 0 A plan delineating the existing drainage of the water setting forth in which direction the volume, and at what rate the stormwater is conveyed from the site in setting forth those areas on the site where stormwater collects and is gradually percolated into the ground or slowly released to stream or lake. L3 A description of the soils on the site including a map indicating soil types by areas to be disturbed as well as a soil report containing information on the suitability of the soils for the type of development proposed and for the type of sewage disposal proposed and describing any remedial steps to be taken by the developer to render the soils suitable. All areas Critical Area Permit Request (modified 121612013) Page 1of2 cq C4 16 big 0 (L U10 7 LL ME z WLLJ 0 page 45 r. Print Preview Planning Case 2015-19 Public Hearing Netice Mailing List Page 1 of 1 page 46 273778001020 273770002020 0' 744 WOODRIDGE DR 714 WOODRIDGE DR AARON M & SARAH .A MACKE ]AM ES & LOIS FRTT7 279007000010 273760006020 731 WOODRIDGE DR 1149CASCADE LN .ARTHUR M PERLMA N PAUL S & BEVERLY JOHNSON 273775014190 2.73770002010 10 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS � 734 WOODRIDGE DR RICHARD B & ANN B CAMMACK - i--1 273760006050 273775011130 711 MAPLE PARK CT CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROGER,] & MARY A YACKLEY 273770001021 273775011170 727 WOODRIDGE DR CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS SAMANTHA I GEMBERLING 273778001010 273775011261 754 WOODRIDGE DR CITY OF ST PAUL I SARA L & TODD H HULSE 240380017012 CITY OF ST PAUL 243770010092 CITY OF ST PAUL 273770001022 711 WOODRIDGE DR DAVID A BERG 243770011310 STATE OF MN - DNR mX1270390021010 STATE OF MN - LINE: 273775011080 '.STATEOFMN - DOT 273760002070 2.73775011301 709 WOODRIDGE DR �'}!� STATE OF MN -DOT GARY R & MARY K FABEL Disclaimer_ Map and parcel data are believed bo be accurate, butaccuracy is not guaranteed_ This is not a legal Map Scale dnc+ument and should not be substituted Fora Ntie search appraisal, survey, or forzoning verification_ Dakota County 1 inch = 802 feet assumes no legal responsibirity for the information contained in this data. 6/2/2015 http://gis.co. dakota.mn.uslDCGISIWebFonnsIPrint.aspx?img=http:Hgis.co.dakota.mn.us/Co... 6/2/2015 Print Preview Page 2 A, Page 1 of 1 page 47 DFsclarrner- Map and parcel data are believed do be accurate, but accuracy rs not guaranteed- Thrs is not a legal Map scaie document and should Trot be subsbtutzd fora title search appraisal survey, or forronrrrg rerilac-shon- Dakota County 1 inch = 400 feet assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in dais data. 6/2/2015 http://gis.co. dakota.mn.us/DCGISIWebFonnsIPrint.aspx?img=http:Hgis.co.dakota.mn.us/Co... 6/2/2015 State oIMinnesota GSCouu1ynfDohot ^ ' EKITTY S(I0D0ERG` being duly sworn, on oeUl, says that he/she is the publisher or authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: (A) The newspaper has complied withall of the requirements constituting qualification as o qualified newspaper, as provided bvMinnesota Statute 331A.02.331A.07.and other applicable laws, asamended. f�[��� /B> The printed NOTICE OF HB which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, andwas printed and published once each �m week, for l successive weeks; it was first published on �Nl]/\��. the day of }T]]<E . 20 15 . and was thereafter printed and published on every to and including . tho______ day of , 20____; and printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used inthe composition and publication ofthe notice: '",,,^'� Subscribed and sworn tobefore moon -m O ay TTT�]B l5 TITLE LEGALc60RDINATOR *Alphabet should beinthe same size and kind oftype osthe notice. TONYA R. WHITEHEAD Notary Publio-Minnesota RATE INFORMATION (1) Loweot classified rate paid by (2) Maximum allowed bylaw for the above matter ........................................... $25.00per col. inch /3\Rate actually charged for theobovumatter------------------. $ per col. inch 1/15 page 49 page 50 Sf. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 5118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.corn r IPP— m{ Ci7v OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: July 7, 2015 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: New Tobacco License — Mendota Liquor Barrel BACKGROUND Twin City Beverage, Inc. d/b/a Mendota Liquor Barrel has submitted an application for a tobacco license for their location at 766 Highway 110. The license would be effective July 8, 2015 through December 31, 2015. The establishment has submitted a complete application packet and paid the license fee. The Police Department has completed a background investigation and found no issues or concerns. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the tobacco license for Twin City Beverage, Inc. d/b/a Mendota Liquor Barrel at 766 Highway 110, for the period of July 81, 2015 through December 31, 2015. page 51 Sg. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: July 7, 2015 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Amendment to City Code—Fire Code/Barbeques at Multiple Family Dwellings COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve modifications to a section of the City Code in order to become compliant with State law. This is a Fire Code provision relating to the allowance of the use of barbeques in multiple family dwellings. BACKGROUND Fire Marshall Jim Lee has made me aware that Mendota Heights City Code prohibits barbeques in multi -family structures (apartments) which contain "two (2) or more vertically stacked residential units." However, he notes that State law prohibits open flames "...in any structure containing three or more dwelling units". Ground units may not have barbeques located within 15 feet of the structure. In this instance, City Code may not be less restrictive than State law. Therefore, a modification to the ordinance is required. The proposed language is attached. The changes would also provide for exceptions, and where fuel may be stored. It is proposed that these changes would become effective upon publication. The City would publicize the change on the City Website, Fire Department Website, and Heights Highlights. BUDGET IMPACT There is no direct impact on the City budget. RECOMMENDATION So as to bring the City into compliance with State law, I recommend approval of the ordinance. The Fire Chief concurs. page 52 ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should pass the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 7, CHAPTER 2 OF THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO FIRES OR BARBEQUES ON BALCONIES ON PATIOS Mark McNeill City Administrator page 53 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 480 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 7, CHAPTER 2 OF THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO FIRES OR BARBEQUES ON BALCONIES ON PATIOS The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota ordains as follows: The following language in Section 7-2-11 is hereby amended as follows: 7-2-11: FIRES OR BARBECUES ON BALCONIES OR PATIOS: A. In any structure containing three or more to ^ (2) of: fn^re 6ea!1 staekea residential units, no person shall kindle, maintain, or cause any fire or open flame on any balcony above ground level, or on any ground floor patio immediately adjacent to or within fifteen feet (15') of any unit. B. Fuel Storage Prohibited. No person shall store or use any fuel, barbecue, torch or similar heating or lighting chemical or devices in eithef of the plaees eited in 9.1 of the Oro ee&the locations designated in Section A of this code. E)s as deser-ibed in 9.1 of the fiFe eede -of Stefage 1 -fl- basement shall be pfohibited. DC. Exception: Listed electric or gas fired barbecue grills that are permanently mounted and wired or plumbed to the building's gas supply or electrical system and that maintain a minimum clearance as fe"ifed by the t,.,,,,,�,.tuFe,. and of 18 inches on all sides, unless listed for lesser clearances, may be installed on balconies and patios when approved by the ^de ^ athe*chief. This ordinance shall take effect upon its adoption and publication according to law. Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this 7th day of July, 2015. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 54 Sh. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota 5118 651.452.1850 phone 1651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com , T mCITY OF MENDDTA HEIGHTS DATE: July 7, 2015 TO: Mayor, Council and City Administrator FROM: Mike Aschenbrener SUBJECT: Resolution 2015-43: Formally Acknowledging Receipt of Gifts to the City 5K Run and the City Parks Celebration BACKGROUND The city auditor has advised that Minnesota State Statute 465.03 "Gifts to municipalities" requires all donations be acknowledged by resolution. This memo meets Minnesota State Statutory requirements. Sergeant Neil Garlock has coordinated every aspect of the City of Mendota Heights 5k Run\walk component of the Celebrate the Parks Celebration since 2006. Once again, but this time as a volunteer, Neil made this race a success and kept expenses low so that the majority of the proceeds go to Special Olympics Minnesota. See the included spread sheet of the race expenses. This year's total donation to Special Olympics Minnesota will be $9232.31. This total includes three additional additional checks that were made out directly to Special Olympics for $1625.00. This year businesses and residents donated items valued at $12,278.00 to the 5k race. See attached lists of donations to the 5k. Donations and prizes donated to the Parks Celebration totaled approximately $4000.00. A complete list of donors and prizes is included in Council Resolution 2015-43. I recommend the City Council pass the attached resolution accepting the gifts to the 5k Run/Walk and authorize a check made out to Special Olympics Minnesota for $9232.31. Thank you letters have been sent to the Parks Celebration Donors and will be sent to the 5k Donors after the resolution has been passed. BUDGET IMPACT These donations help offset the costs of running the community celebrations. RECOMMENDATION If Council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 2015-43: "RESOLUTION FORMALLY ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF THE GIFT TO THE CITY 5K AND THE CITY PARKS CELEBRATION," and authorize a check to Special Olympics Minnesota for $9232.31. page 55 City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION 2015-43 RESOLUTION FORMALLY ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF THE GIFTS TO THE CITY 5K AND THE CITY PARKS CELEBRATION WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights desires to follow Minnesota Statute 465.03 "Gifts to municipalities"; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota State Statute requires a resolution to accept gifts to municipalities; and WHEREAS, the City has previously acknowledged gifts with a resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights have duly considered this matter and wish to acknowledge the civic mindedness of citizens and officially recognize their donations. NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights is accepting donations from the following people and organizations in support of the 5k run and the Mendota Heights Parks Celebration. 2015 5K Door Prizes VENDOR PRIZE VALUE American Bank 2-$25 Visa Cards $ 50 Anytime Fitness 6 month Membership & 3 Personal Training Sessions $ 650 Artitude $150 Gift Certificate $ 150 BC Contacting Potted Tree $ 240 Bill & Brenda Moosbrugger $100 Cash $ 100 Best Western Plus -Eagan One Night Stay $ 100 Billy's On Grand 2-$25 Gift Cards $ 50 Blue Stone 4-$25 Gift Cards $ 100 Bob & Laurie Murphy Ipad Mini $ 300 Bob & Mary Franson 2-$100 Mancini's Gift Cards $ 200 Bob Brackey & Neil G 55" LG LED TV $ 525 Boca Chica $30 Gift Certifcate $ 30 Bogey's 2-$50 Gift Certificates $ 100 Bonfire $50 Gift Card $ 50 BP -Mendota Heights 4 Oil Changes $ 200 Cherokee Tavern $20 Gift Card $ 20 Chet's Liquor 2 Bottles of Wine $ 36 Courtyard Marriott -MH 10 Nights Stay $ 1,000 Dahlberg Services Inc $100 Cash $ 100 DeGidio's 3-$50 Gift Cards $ 150 Dixie's $20 Gift Card $ 20 Downtowner $50 Gift Card $ 50 page 56 Eagle Street Grille 4-$25 Gift Certificates $ 100 Louie Peltier $100 Cash $ 100 Ed Hayes 20 Pair Of Juzo Socks $ 200 Fairfield Inn -MH 2 Nights Stay $ 200 Fireside Lounge $20 Gift Card $ 20 Gallagher's 3-$25 Gift Certificates $ 75 Grand 7 4 -St Paul Saints Tickets $ 100 Great Moon Buffet 2-$25 Gift Certificates $ 50 Greg Boyle 48" Samsung LED TV $ 525 Hampton Inn -Eagan 2 Nights Stay $ 200 Hilltop Family Chiropractic 2 -Gift Baskets $ 200 Holiday Inn -Eagan One Night Stay $ 100 Holiday-Lilydale 2-$25 Gift Cards $ 50 Houlihan's-Eagan $25 Gift Certificate $ 25 Inver Grove Ford Oil Change $ 40 John Sweitzer 2-$50 Holiday Cards $ 100 Juniors Caf6-Eagan $10 Gift Certificate $ 10 Kaposia Tree Service $150 Gift Certificate $ 150 Klocke Autoworks $100 Cash $ 100 Kraus Anderson 4 MN Twins Tickets $ 125 Landmark Jewelers Fresh Water Pearls & $100 Gift Certificate $ 395 Lilydale Barber's Men's Haircut $ 21 Lost Spur Golf Course Round Of Golf For 2 W/Cart $ 53 Lucky's 10-$25 Gift Cards $ 250 Malerich Arts 2 Gift Certificates $ 60 Massage Elements 1/2 Hour Massage $ 40 Matt Martin $100 Cash $ 100 Mauer Chevolet 2 Oil Changes $ 80 Meisinger Construction $200 Cash $ 200 Mendakota CC Round Of Golf For 4 W/Carts & Social Membership $ 592 Mendota Heights Par 3 12 Rounds Of Golf $ 156 Mike's Butcher Shop $20 Gift Certificate $ 20 Moose Country 4-$25 Gift Cards $ 100 Neil Garlock 55" Hitachi LED TV $ 525 O'Gara's 4-$25 Gift Cards $ 100 Pam's Hair Design 2-10 Tanning Sessions $ 90 Paradise Car Wash 2 -Supreme Pkg Books & World Gift Card $ 455 Perkin's -Eagan $25 Gift Card $ 25 Pool & Yacht 2-$100 Gift Cards $ 200 Residence Inn -Eagan One Night Stay $ 100 Retail Database Solutions $100 Cash $ 100 Romero Auto Oil Change $ 40 Shepard Road Parking Free Ramp Parking - 7 Days $ 80 Smith Liquors $50 Cash $ 50 Soapy Joe's Car Wash Interior Detail & 3 Ultimate Car Washes $ 150 Southview CC Social Membership $ 250 Steve Morganson & Bob B 55" LG LED TV $ 525 Sunfish Cellars 2-$25 & 1- $50 Gift Cards $ 100 Res. 2015-43 Page 2 of 3 page 57 Super America $100 Gift Card $ 100 Teresa's Restaurant 10-$20 Gift Cards $ 200 The Pizza Shop 3-$25 Gift Certificates & 3 T Shirts $ 105 The Wine Market $25 Gift Card $ 25 Tommy Chicago Pizza $25 Gift Card $ 25 Wild Onion 4-$25 Gift Cards $ 100 Zerorez $175 Gift Certificate $ 175 Total 2015 Parks Celebration Donations Howry Residential Services: $100 Valmont Industries: $250 LCS Company: $200 Paterson Companies: $750 Hudson Company: $100 Signart: $ 50 St Thomas Academy: $250 Somerset Country Club: $100 Granite Foundation: $200 Bituminous: $500 Eyes of Mendota: $250 Mendakota Animal Hospital: $500 Moose Country: $100 Lexington Heights Apartments: $500 One Ten Cycles: $150 Grand Total: $4000 $ 12,278 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of July, 2015. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST: Lord Smith, City Clerk Res. 2015-43 Page 3 of 3 page 58 Si. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota•heights.com , r IFF— mR CITY OF MENDDTA HEIGHTS DATE: July 7, 2015 TO: Mayor, Council, City Administrator and Chief of Police FROM: Mike Aschenbrener, Chief of Police / Emergency Manager SUBJECT: Resolution 2015-53 Authorizing Public Use of Found Property by the Police Department INTRODUCTION: Mendota Heights City Code Title 1 Section 9 Chapters 1 & 2 define property and authorize destruction or City use of property. See attached copy. BACKGROUND: On December 18, 2014 at 11:00 p.m. Officer Meyer located a tool box full of miscellaneous items along the side Wachtler Avenue. The tool box was inventoried case #14000937 and placed into property. The property includes a Black & Decker 20v cordless drill. The police department would like to put the drill, battery and charger into city use. RECOMMENDATION: If Council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion adopting Resolution 2015-53: "RESOLUTION FORMALLY AUTHORIZING PUBLIC USE OF FOUND PROPERTY BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT." page 59 City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION 2015-53 RESOLUTION FORMALLY AUTHORIZING PUBLIC USE OF FOUND PROPERTY BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights desires to follow Code Title 1 "Unclaimed Personal Property" for appropriate disposition of property; and WHEREAS, the Code in Section 9 Chapter 1 defines property eligible; and WHEREAS, the Code in Chapter 2 defines allowable legal disposition of the property; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights have duly considered this matter and wish to be fiscally responsible by appropriating when possible items for use in public service. NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights authorizes the Police Department to put a Black and Decker cordless drill into City service. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7t" day of July, 2015. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST: Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 60 Sj. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota H 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com , T mCITY OF MENDDTA HEIGHTS DATE: July 7, 2015 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Mike Aschenbrener, Police Chief SUBJECT: Deer Population Management Plan Update BACKGROUND The City of Mendota Heights adopted its first deer management plan in 1995 with assistance from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and began working with the Metro Bow Hunters Resource Base (MBHRB) at that time to provide the hunters. Since that time the hunt has changed along with the density of the populations in the City of Mendota Heights. In 2008, the council adopted a resolution to continue with the same deer management plan under the same rules as we had used since the 2004 hunt. The MBHRB has received high marks from the property owners on whose land they have hunted. We regularly receive requests to hunt private property within the City of Mendota Heights. Generally the call is from a hunter who knows or has permission from a land -owner to hunt property in the city. In the past ten years, the city has not granted a hunting exemption to a private party and has only issued a single archery permit. It has been approximately 15 years since the city maintained a public archery practice area. At the 2012 Council Workshop a group of residents requested the city consider deer population control in their neighborhoods. At the goal setting workshop, an outline was discussed for potential options to expand the current status of the deer population management plan. Since the City Council goal setting workshop p several things have occurred: • A review of the rules for hunting in neighboring communities has been completed. • There have been three successful MBHRB hunts. • The hunt has successfully expanded to include other properties owned both publicly and privately. • The website is updated annually with information on population control efforts. • The taking of cCoyotes has helped reduce the population and ensured the current populations does not become accustomed to being around humans. • We have participated in population counts each year with other metro area governments to track our deer herds. 2014-15 no fly over occurred due to weather. • Sergeant Petersen has served as the liaison to the MBHRB for the past three hunts. • After the 2016 hunt a new 5 year agreement will be required to continue the efforts and deal with requests for other metro game population control. BUDGET IMPACT The police department spends approximately 20 hours of staff time annually maintaining this project. The MBHRB has not required the City pay the fee to be named on their liability policy as an insured. 07 07 15 Update Deer Population Management Plan RECOMMENDATION This is an update only at this time. page 61 07 07 15 Update Deer Population Management Plan page 62 U�:] 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Hia 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota•heights.com , CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: July 7, 2015 TO: Mayor, Council, City Administrator and Chief of Police FROM: Mike Aschenbrener, Chief of Police / Emergency Manager SUBJECT: Out of Metro Travel INTRODUCTION: City policy requires notification of out of state travel. Chad Willson will be attending Mutual Aid Assistance Group training a Fort McCoy in Sparta, WI in September. This is a planned annual training. MAAG Training: Included in membership dues Travel date: September 20-25, 2015 Location: Fort McCoy, Sparta, WI Lodging: Included Meals: 7 GSA maximum city cost $55.75 Mileage: 174 miles one way round trip 348 miles City Vehicle: 17.4 gallons of fuel@ current $2.76 maximum cost $48.02 (Please note that if carpooling can occur the cost will be reduced.) Total estimated cost: $103.77 Chad Willson will be attending Mid -States Organized Crime Information Center training in St. Charles, MO in September. This is a planned annual training conference. MOCIC Conference: $210.00 Travel date: September 15-17, 2015 Location: St. Charles Conference Center Lodging: Embassy Suites St Charles, MO conference rate $115 night $345 total Meals: 8 GSA maximum rate $142 Airfare: Estimated at $242 Cab: Estimated at $24 Total estimated cost: $963.00 BACKGROUND: These are budgeted expenses. The money is available in the budget to cover the costs. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to attend the training as representatives of the City of Mendota Heights Police Department. page 63 51. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com , /r mCITY OF MENDIDTA HEIGHTS DATE: July 7, 2015 TO: Mayor, Council, City Administrator and Chief of Police FROM: Mike Aschenbrener, Chief of Police / Emergency Manager SUBJECT: Vehicle Purchase INTRODUCTION: During the 2014 budget planning the replacement of one of the unmarked vehicles was delayed by a year. In the 2015 planning the replacement was authorized. The vehicle will be a 2016 Ford Police Utility set up to look like a civilian model. The budgeted cost of the vehicle including outfitting was set at $34,000. The vehicle will be ordered off of the State of Minnesota Contract # A-174(5) through the Cooperative Purchase Program for a total cost of $31,287.95. In the past we have attempted to work with our local dealers on the police package purchases only to find out they are not allowed to sell the police packages. It is estimated that delivery will be 90 to 105 days from date of order. After the delivery the vehicle will be up outfitted at Emergency Automotive Technologies Incorporated under State Contract # V-30 (5) for the radio and light installation, at cost, not to exceed the amount of $2712.05. BUDGETIMPATCT: $34,000 was budgeted for this project and it will be under budget. RECOMMENDATION: If the Council so desires, authorize staff to sign the purchase order for the vehicle with Nelson Auto and schedule the up fitting with Emergency Automotive Technologies. page 64 Sm. 1101 Vim Cwn I Ml: Kk� to Height, MN 5518 f'51AS1kWph0Ae 1 651E 2-Wofax wn+*mwKW-heights.ccm , * Cliff+ OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: July 7, 2015 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Tamara Schutta Assistant to the City Administrator/HR Coordinator SUBJECT: Personnel Action Item Item 1: Approve Extended Light Duty/Modified Duty Assignment Mendota Heights Personnel Code Section 17, Light Duty/Modified Duty Assignment, establishes guidelines for temporary assignment of work to employees who are temporarily unable to perform the essential functions of their regular positions with or without reasonable accommodation. Light duty is evaluated by the City Administrator or designee on a case-by-case basis. This policy does not guarantee assignment to light duty. Police Officer Meyer has been assigned to a light duty/modified duty assignment effective April 13, 2015 through July 12, 2015. Work restrictions have been extended past July 12, 2015. Section 17 of the personnel code requires City Council approval for a light duty assignment beyond the three months. Staff is requesting an additional three months of a light duty/modified duty assignment for Officer Meyer. Chief Aschenbrener has identified a number of administrative tasks for Officer Meyer to complete during this modified duty assignment. The period of light duty/modified duty assignment would be July 13, 2015 through October 12, 2015. BUDGET IMPACT Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve the action requested above for item one. CITY OF00ENQO7AHEIGHTS TREASURER'S REPORT MAY 201S BALANCE COLLATERAL American Bank Checking Account .0296 $17.151.37 Savings Account .0296 ${4{0.47 $17,791.84 Collateral -Bondn $1.078.022.00 Gov't. Guar. $250.000.00 Investments Cost 9V Saving Cert 1/2G/ 5@0.1596Cherokoe $13.963.59 $13.862.58 FHLB 2.009612/3O/1Q $500.000.00 $500.065.00 FHLB 2.009612/3D/1S $750.000.00 $750.097.50 FHLB 1.00961/3O/2O $500.000.00 $500.325.00 FHLYWC1.00962/27/2O $750.000.00 $740.032.50 FHLB 1.0OY62/27/2O $250.000.00 $250.105.00 FHLB 2.0096O4/O1/2O $750.000.00 $750.472.50 GECapital Financial Inc 2.O59611M/1S $245.000.00 $248.826.90 American Express Cent Bank 2.0SY612y1/1G $245.000.00 o248.905.30 GE Capital Retail Bank 2.00967/G/18 $200.000.00 $201.810.00 Sallie Mae Bank 2.O6O9611/2O/18 $245.000.00 $247.276.05 BMW Bank 2.009612/11/18 $245.000.00 $246.788.50 World's Foremost Bank 2.00Y6O8/13/18 $200.000.00 $200.000.00 Cit Bank 2.159611/13/18 $245.000.00 $242.527.96 Goldman Sachs Bank 2.2OY612/17Y18 $100.000.00 $101.058.00 Fidelity Institutional Government Portfolio (Piper) $1.147.042.57 $1.147.042.57 Gnv't.Securities Fund 2896Sold G/4 $433.187.00 $1.031.000.00 K8[Wk±Fd(JVF) $806.12877 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE 5/31hS $7.743.102.77 Funds Available 1M/2O1S $12'023.99113 Rates Money Marke May Bank 0.0296 5Yr. Tr. 1'4996 1OYr. Tr. 2.1296 page 66 So. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Hei 651,452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax WWWmendota•heights,com CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: July 7, 2015 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director SUBJECT: Claims List Summary Sinnificant Claims Inver Grove Ford — Engineering Truck $ 29,322.75 A to Z Home Inspections — May/June Inspections $ 7,225.00 Dermco — Lavine Construction — Tennis Court Rehab $ 61,400.00 Goodpoint Technology Inc. — Asset Management System $ 5,600.00 Mendakota Country Club — Fireworks Contribution $ 4,000.00 Northwestern University — Police Training $ 3,922.00 S & S Tree Specialists —Tree Removal $ 5,885.00 Jeff VonFeldt — Tuition Reimbursement $ 4,620.00 Manual Checks Total System Checks Total Total for the list of claims for the July 7, 2015 city council meeting Approval of the list of claims for July 7, 2015. $ 113,699.30 $ 186,275.56 $ 299,974.86 page 67 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 07/01/15 1:27 PM Page 1 Claims List MANUAL CHECKS 06/15/15 MAN Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name MENDOTA HEIGHTS, CITY OF G 45-1155 CREDIT CARD TRANSFER $10,000.00 G 15-1155 CREDIT CARD TRANSFER $5,000.00 G 01-1155 CREDIT CARD TRANSFER $25,000.00 Search Name MENDOTA HEIGHTS, CITY OF $40,000.00 $40,000.00 page 68 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 07/01/15 1:26 PM Page 1 Claims List MANUAL CHECKS 06/30/15 MAN Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name GARCIA, LAURIE E 80-4460-788-00 SPRINKLER REPAIR - VICTORI Spec Fds $300.00 Search Name GARCIA, LAURIE $300.00 Search Name HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES E 01-4220-085-85 CLEAN-UP DAY SUPPLIES Recycling $12.91 E 08-4335-000-00 BLDG REPAIR SUPPLIES - CITY Spec Fds $18.90 E 08-4335-000-00 BLDG REPAIR SUPPLIES - CITY Spec Fds $16.71 E 01-4305-070-70 OPERATING SUPPLIES - PARKS Parks & Recreation $60.18 E 08-4335-000-00 CLEANING SUPPLIES - CITY HA Spec Fds $13.41 E 01-4305-040-40 SHELVING - CODE ENFORCEME Code Enforcement/Inspe $11.11 E 01-4305-040-40 SHELVING - CODE ENFORCEME Code Enforcement/Inspe $396.00 E 01-4305-070-70 OPERATING SUPPLIES - PARKS Parks & Recreation $134.77 E 01-4305-040-40 SHELVING - CODE ENFORCEME Code Enforcement/Inspe $99.00 E 01-4335-315-30 BLDG REPAIR SUPPLIES - FIRE Fire $10.69 E 01-4335-315-30 BLDG REPAIR SUPPLIES - FIRE Fire $95.68 E 08-4335-000-00 BLDG REPAIR SUPPLIES - CITY Spec Fds $5.96 E 08-4335-000-00 BLDG REPAIR SUPPLIES - CITY Spec Fds $14.96 E 08-4335-000-00 BLDG REPAIR SUPPLIES - CITY Spec Fds $17.84 E 08-4335-000-00 BLDG REPAIR SUPPLIES - CITY Spec Fds $12.97 E 01-4336-050-50 PLOW DAMAGE REPAIRS Road & Bridges $234.39 E 08-4335-000-00 BLDG REPAIR SUPPLIES - CITY Spec Fds $17.98 E 01-4305-070-70 OPERATING SUPPLIES - PARKS Parks & Recreation $48.49 E 01-4305-050-50 OPERATING SUPPLIES - STREE Road & Bridges $229.18 Search Name HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES $1,451.13 Search Name I C M A RETIREMENT 457 G 01-2072 06/19/2015 PAYROLL $1,255.92 Search Name I C M A RETIREMENT 457 $1,255.92 Search Name INVER GROVE FORD E 05-4620-105-15 NEW TRUCK - ENGINEERING D Engineering Enterprise $29,322.75 Search Name INVER GROVE FORD $29,322.75 Search Name MENDOTA HEIGHTS GENERAL ACCT. G 01-1021 REPLENISH PETTY CASH $478.76 Search Name MENDOTA HEIGHTS GENERAL ACCT. $478.76 Search Name NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION G 01-2072 06/19/2015 PAYROLL $50.00 Search Name NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION $50.00 Search Name SW/WC SERVICE COOPERATIVES G 01-1145 JULY 2015 HEALTH INSURANC -$2,103.00 E 01-4131-020-20 JULY 2015 HEALTH INSURANC Police $16,114.00 E 01-4131-050-50 JULY 2015 HEALTH INSURANC Road & Bridges $5,739.00 E 01-4131-070-70 JULY 2015 HEALTH INSURANC Parks & Recreation $1,313.00 E 05-4131-105-15 JULY 2015 HEALTH INSURANC Engineering Enterprise $2,556.00 G 01-2071 JULY 2015 HEALTH INSURANC $4,271.00 E 01-4131-110-10 JULY 2015 HEALTH INSURANC Administration $4,908.00 G 01-2074 JULY 2015 HEALTH INSURANC $1,313.00 Search Name SW/WC SERVICE COOPERATIVES $34,111.00 Search Name U. S. BANK Search Name UNITED WAY OF ST. PAUL G01-2070 06/19/2015 PAYROLL Search Name UNITED WAY OF ST. PAUL Search Name US POSTAL SERVICE G01 -1Z10 Search Name US POSTAL SERVICE Search Name XCEL ENERGY [45-4Z1Z-01h-45 EO1-4211-5ZO-7O E 45-9311'047'45 E 45-4211'046~45 EO1'421Z-32O'7O Search Name XCEL ENERGY REPLENISH POSTAGE METER MAY 015UTILITIES MAY Z015UTILITIES MAY 2015UTILITIES MAY 2O15UTILITIES MAY ZO15UTILITIES Golf Course $30.20 Parks &Recreation page 69 Golf Course CITY OF��EN[3��TA HEIGHTS n�o1�s1�o�m $3736 Parks &Recreation $9.45 Page Claims List MANUALCHsCKS 06/30/15 MAN Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount E 45-4334-045-45 COURSE BEAUTIFICATION Golf Course $56.34 E 45-4334-045-45 COURSE BEAUTIFICATION Golf Course $56.34 E 45-4334-045-45 COURSE BEAUTIFICATION Golf Course $56.34 EV1-43O5-G30-3O EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION S Re $446.50 E 01'1135-200'70 TRAINING PARKS Parks 0Recreation $90.00 EO1'44]5'ZOO'7O GUPPLIES' PLAYGROUNDS Parks &Recreation $43.95 EO1'q4JS'20O-7O FIELD TRIPS Parks &Recreation $1,060.50 EO1'14J5'2OO'7O TENNIS SUPPLIES Parks &Recreation $510.02 GO1-2UJ5 TENNIS SUPPLIES -$32.81 E 45'4335-045'15 KEYS - PAR] Golf Course $6.33 E1G'1]34-045'45 COURSE BEAUTIFICATION Golf Course $56.34 EO1-4306-020'2O POLICE INTERVIEWS Police $52.14 E15-13O5'O60-6D OPERATING SUPPLIES -3ENE Utility Enterprise ¢168.08 EO1'4301'11q'14 BJUIPMENTREPAQK-PD Info Tech $116.77 EO1'44]5-2DO'70 SUPPLIES 'PLAYGROUNDS Parks &Recreation $333.19 E 45-4190'045-45 PAR3SE0DCE Golf Course $212.68 GD1'Z0]5 SUPPLIES 'PLAYGROUNDS -$21.43 E01'14O0'OlU'2O TRAINlNGSUPPOES- PD Police '$32.90 EO1-4135'2OO'7O TRAINlNG- PARKS Parks &Recreation $90.00 [O1-44S5'ZO0-7U TRAINING - PARKS Parks &Recreation ¢90.00 EO1-449O'11O'10 MEETING SUPPLIES Administration $27.61 E 01-4330'190-50 EQUIPMENT- STREETS Road & Bridges $974.35 E 01-4330-490-70 EQUIPMENT ' PARKS Parks & Recreation $139.19 EO1'4qOO'0ZO'ZO CONFERENCE REGISTRATION - Police $210.00 EO1,4]]O-490-5O EQUIPMENT -STREETS Road &Bridges $34.55 EO1'4J30-q9O-50 EQUIPMENT 'STREETS Road &Bridges $34.5� Search Name U. S. BANK $1,778.93 Search Name UNITED WAY OF ST. PAUL G01-2070 06/19/2015 PAYROLL Search Name UNITED WAY OF ST. PAUL Search Name US POSTAL SERVICE G01 -1Z10 Search Name US POSTAL SERVICE Search Name XCEL ENERGY [45-4Z1Z-01h-45 EO1-4211-5ZO-7O E 45-9311'047'45 E 45-4211'046~45 EO1'421Z-32O'7O Search Name XCEL ENERGY REPLENISH POSTAGE METER MAY 015UTILITIES MAY Z015UTILITIES MAY 2015UTILITIES MAY 2O15UTILITIES MAY ZO15UTILITIES Golf Course $30.20 Parks &Recreation $zr:u Golf Course $611.38 Golf Course $3736 Parks &Recreation $9.45 $73,699.30 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 07/07115 PAY page 70 07/01/153:01PN Page Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount EU1-4490-109'09 BUSINESS CARDS -U.DUGGAN City Council $71.10 Search Name �2,TREE, LLC BUSINESS CARDS -M.ANDRE] CodeEnhonement/Imspa $74.47 E01-45OO{8O`5O STUMP REMOVAL Road &Bridges $75.00 [O1-45OO'O5O-5O STUMPS REMOVAL Road 8Bridges $460.00 Search Name 1,2,TREE, LLC BUSINESS CARDS - PD Police ¢535.00 Search Name 3RD LAIR SKATE PARK &IMAGING SpeoFds $506.59 [O1'41]5'20U'70 SKATEBOARD CAMP Parks &Recreation Sea'rchName3RDLAlRSKATEPARK $500.00 Search Name ATOZHOME INSPECTION, LLC EO1-4231-010+0 MAY -JUNE 2O15INSPECTIONS [ode Enforcement/Inspe $7,225.00 Search Name A0ZHOME INSPECTION, LLC �225.00 Search Name ALEX AIR APPARATUS ED1'43]O'4hO']0 EQUIPMENT REPAIR - FIRE DE Fire $185.00 Search Name ALEX AIR APPARATUS $185.00 Search Name ALLSAFE INC EO8-4J35-00O-0O ANNUAL INSPECTION ' CITY U SpccFdb $40.25 Search Name ALL SAFE INC $40.25 Search Name ALU5GRAPRINT &IMAGING EO1-430O-020-2D STADONERY-PD Police $7039 EU1-4490-109'09 BUSINESS CARDS -U.DUGGAN City Council $71.10 EO1'*3OO-O40'4O BUSINESS CARDS -M.ANDRE] CodeEnhonement/Imspa $74.47 EO1-43O5'O4D-4O GAS LINE CARDS -CODE CodeEnfonement/Inspe $150.39 E01'1]0O'OZO-20 BUSINESS CARDS 'PD Pn||oa $65.12 EO1'1JOO'02O-2O BUSINESS CARDS - PD Police $65.12 Search Name ALLEGKAPRINT &IMAGING SpeoFds $506.59 Search Name ALLSTATE PETE0BLT E01-4]3O-4OO-3o EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 'r Fire $11�1 [O1 -4]]U -44O-20 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 'P Police $7360 EO1-433U'190-7O EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS -P Parks &Recreation $*7.40 Search Name ALLSTATE PE[ RBILT $132.01 Search Name AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL INCENTIVE 5O1-1145 CLEAN-UP DAY T-SHIRTS EO1-4Z2O'O85fB CLEAN-UP DAY T-SHIRTS Recycling E 45-4410'095^8 T-SHIRTS ' GOLF PROGRAMS Golf Course Search Name AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL INCENTIVE Search Name AM[RIPKIDESERVICES I EO1-4�35'310'5U MAT SERVICE -RNGARAGE Road &Bridges E01'4]35 -]1O -7U MAT SERVICE -RWGARAGE Parks &Recreation E15'4]]5-J10'OO MATSERVlCE-PVVGAKAGE Utility Enterprise EO8'4335-00O-OO MAT SERVICE CITY HALL SpeoFds Searth Name AMERlPKIDESERVICES Search Name ARROWMOWER INC. EO1-4]JD-490fO Search Name ARROW MOWER INC. Search Name ASPEN MILLS EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 'P Parks &Rooeation $47.90 $571.52 $1,556.42 $28.11 $28'10 $28.10 $153.59 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 07/07/15 PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name ASPEN MILLS $707.40 Search Name ASSURANT EMPLOYEE BENEFITS EU1'11J3-0]z-]0 JUNE 2015 LTD PREMIUM Fire $190.80 EO1'113Z'0]1']O JULY 2O15LTD PREMIUM Fire $1c.7� Search Name A5SURANT MPL0YEEDENEpTTS $336.50 Search Name ATOM Utility Enterprise $85.91 EU1-113]-O50'5U EO1-1qO0'0Z0'20 TRAINING 'PD Police 170040 Search Name ATOM Engineering Enterprise $40.23 $700.00 Search Name B&KTRAINING, LLC Administration $75.00 EO1'11]3-0]1-]U [O1-110O'07O'7O FIRST RESPONDER REFRESHE Parks &Recreation $100.00 EO1'4100-03U'lO FIRST RESPONDER REFRE5ME Police $1,600.00 EO1'44O0'O3O']O FIRST RESPONDER KE[RESME Fire $100.00 E15'44OO'0§0-6O FIRST RESPONDER REFRESME Utility Enterprise $100.00 Search Name D8KTRAINING, LLC Golf Course $17.04 ¢1,900.00 E01~4]O5-07O-7U BASKET BALL NETS -PARKS Parks &Recreation Search Name B S N SPORTS $10036 Search Name BGARENCEMANAGEMENT GROUP E 15-4133-000-60 WORKERS COMP POLICY COM Utility Enterprise $85.91 EU1-113]-O50'5U WORKERS COMP POLICY COM Road &Bridges $371.98 EO5-41]3-105'15 WORKERS COMP POLICY COM Engineering Enterprise $40.23 EO1-41]j-11O'1O WORKERS COMP POLICY COM Administration $75.00 EO1'11]3-0]1-]U WORKERS COMP POLICY COM Fine $320.44 EO1'41]3'OZU-2O WORKERS COMP POLICY COM Police $927.24 EO1'4133'070-7O WORKERS COMP POLICY COM Parks &Recreation $119.99 EOD'41J]'U00'OO WORKERS COMP POLICY COM Spec Fds $15.00 E15'41]3'U45-15 WORKERS COMP P0LICY COM Golf Course $17.04 EO1'41]]-1O9'09 WORKERS COMP POLICY COM City Council $1.02 Search Name osAuENCeMANAGEMENT GROUP $2,036.85 Search Name BUETOVYZARCHITECTS, INC. EO1-4Z20'OJO-]O FIRE STATION STUDY [ire $2,000.00 Search Name BUETDVYZARCHITECTS, INC. $3,000.00 Search Name BUSINESS FORMS &ACCTG E15'43OO'O6O-5O OFRCESUPPUES-/yPCHECK Utility Enterprise ¢48.91 E01-93O0'11O'1O OFFICE SUPPLIES -/yPCHECK Administration $30.68 E01'4]00 -U20'20 OFFICE SUPPLIES '/yPCHECK Police *76.12 EO1'4]UO-OqO'qU OFFICE SUPPLIES /yPCHECK CodeEnhooemenVInspe $9.17 [O1-430O-O5U-S0 OpFICESUPPLIES-/yPCMECK Road &Bridges $55.02 EO1'43UO-03U'3U OFFICESUPPDES-/yPCMECK He $24.45 E01'4]UO'070-70 OFFICE SUPPLIES '/yPCHECK Parks &Recreation $33.02 EO5'43O0-1O5'15 OFFICE SUPPLIES /VPCM[CK Engineering Enterprise $12.23 [45-4]DO'O45-4S OFFICE SUPPLIES /VPCM[[K Golf Course 19.17 Search Name BUSINESS FORMS QAC{3G $505.67 Search Name C. DARLEN[OEHU<E, CAP E01'122U-O8O-80 O5/2]/15PLANNING COMM. M Planning $304.00 EU1'4220'110-10 05/16/15CITY COUNCIL MEET Administration $140.60 07101/15 3:01 PM Page 2 page 72 CITY ��F ��EN��OTA HEIGHTS n7m1�ou��o1�w Page Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 07/07115 PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name C. DARLENE OEHLKE, CAP $445.20 Search Name CDVVGOVERNMENT, INC EU1'1]01'111'14 COMPUTER ACCESSORIES Info Tech _$129.21_ Search Name C0mGOVERNMENT, INC $129.21 Search Name CENTERLINE CHARTER CORP E01'q4J5-ZOV-70 FIELD TRIPS Parks &Recreation $390.00 EU1'44]5-Z0O-7O FIELD TRIPS Parks 8Recreation $395.00_ Search Name CENTERLINE CHARTER CORP $685.00 Search Name COCA-COLA REFRESHMENTS E15'4]1U-Z1O'45 CONCESSIONS 'PAK3 Golf Course $411.57 Search Name COCA-COLA REFRESHMENTS $111.57 Search Name CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQ EO1-43O5'O7O'70 SAFETY SUPPLIES PARKS Parks &Recreation $44,40 E01'o305-05O'5O SAFETY SUPPLIES STREETS Road &Bridges $20.00 Search Name CONTINENTAL SAFETY E0 $64.40 Search NameCKAYYFOnD DOOR EO1'13]5-31U-5O DOORREm&R-PN Road &Bridges $*7.92 EU1-1]]5-310'7O DOOR REPAlR-RN Parks &Recreation $47.92 E 15-43]5']10-60 DOOR REPAIR 'PN Utility Enterprise Search Name CKAWFORDDOOR $143.75 Search Name CROWN TROPHY EO1'119O'0ZU'3O PLATE ENGRAVING PD Police *19.70 EO1-q490'UZO-2O PLATE ENGRAVING 'PD Police $27.15. Search Name CROWN TROPHY $47.15 Search Name CUSTOM FIRE APPARATUS EO1-4]30'4hO'30 EQUIPMENT REPAIR - FIRE DE Fire $1,800.00 EO1'4J]U-q§U-3O EQUIPMENT REPAIR ' FIRE DE Fire 12,398.00 Search Name CUSTOM FIRE APPARATUS $4,198.00 Search Name DAKOTA COMMUNICATIONS CENTER EU1'4275'020'IO JULY 2015DCC FEE Police $17,515.00 E01 -427S -00'3O JULY ZU15DCC FEE [ire $612.00_ Search Name DAKOTA COMMUNICATIONS CENTER $18,127.00 Search Name DAKOTA COUNTY FINANCIAL SERVlC EO1-4ZOO-h1O'70 MAY 201SRADIO SUBSCRIBER Parks &Recreation $93.32 E05'42O0-010-15 MAY 3O15RADIO SUBSCRIBER Engineering Enterprise $09.99 E15'4200-618'hO MAY 2V15RADIO SUBSCRIBER Utility Enterprise $23.33 EU1-4ZOO'O10-5U MAY 2O15RADIO SUBSCRIBER Road &Bridges $153.31 EO1'4Z75-0Z0-2O APR ZD15RADIO SUBSCRIBER Police $863.I1 EO1'4Z75-0ZO'20 MAY ZO15RADIO SUBSCRIBER Police ¢863.21 E05 -4200'61U-15 APR Z015RADIO SUBSCRIBER Engineering Enterprise $69.99 E15'42OO-61U-60 APR 2O15RADIO SUBSCRIBER Utility Enterprise $23.]] EO1-42OO-hz0'70 APR 2O15RADIO SUBSCRIBER Parks &Recreation $93.32 E01-4ZUO-01O'5O APR 2O15RADIO SUBSCRIBER Road &Bridges $163.31 EO1-4275'O]O'3O APR 2015RADIO SUBSCRIBER Fire $053.24 EO1'q275'O30']U MAY 2O15RADIO SUBSCRIBER Fire $653.24 Search Name DAKOTA COUNTY FINANCIAL SERYIC $],7]2.80 page 73 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 07/01/15 3:01 PM Page 4 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 07/07/15 PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name DAKOTA COUNTY HWY DEPT E 80-4220-788-00 VICTORIA RD PERMIT Spec Fds $125.00 Search Name DAKOTA COUNTY HWY DEPT $125.00 Search Name DAKOTA COUNTY RECORDER E 01-4220-080-80 MAY 2015 ABSTRACTS Search Name DAKOTA COUNTY RECORDER Search Name DELL MARKETING L.P. E 01-4301-114-14 COMPUTER - UB Search Name DELL MARKETING L.P. Search Name DELTA DENTAL G 01-2074 G 01-2071 E 08-4131-000-00 E 01-4131-070-70 E 05-4131-105-15 E 01-4131-020-20 E 01-4131-110-10 E 15-4131-060-60 E 01-4131-050-50 Search Name DELTA DENTAL JULY 2015 DENTAL PREMIUM JULY 2015 DENTAL PREMIUM JULY 2015 DENTAL PREMIUM JULY 2015 DENTAL PREMIUM JULY 2015 DENTAL PREMIUM JULY 2015 DENTAL PREMIUM JULY 2015 DENTAL PREMIUM JULY 2015 DENTAL PREMIUM JULY 2015 DENTAL PREMIUM Search Name DERMCO - LAVINE CONSTRUCTION E 10-4620-000-00 TENNIS COURTS REHAB Search Name DERMCO - LAVINE CONSTRUCTION Search Name DISCOUNT TIRE E 01-4330-460-30 E 01-4330-440-20 Search Name DISCOUNT TIRE Search Name ELECTRO WATCHMAN E 01-4210-050-50 E 01-4210-070-70 E 15-4210-060-60 Search Name ELECTRO WATCHMAN TIRES - FIRE DEPT TIRES - PD QUARTERLY SECURITY MONIT QUARTERLY SECURITY MONIT QUARTERLY SECURITY MONIT Planning Info Tech Spec Fds Parks & Recreation Engineering Enterprise Police Administration Utility Enterprise Road & Bridges Spec Fds Fire Police Road & Bridges Parks & Recreation Utility Enterprise Search Name ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC E 15-4330-490-60 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS - S Utility Enterprise Search Name ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC Search Name FITZGERALD, JUSTIN E 01-4400-030-30 Search Name FITZGERALD, JUSTIN Search Name FLEET SERVICES E 01-4200-610-20 Search Name FLEET SERVICES TRAVEL EXPENSE - J. FIIZGER Fire MAY 2015 SQUAD LEASES Police t1 '4a nn :P1J6.UU $1,325.99 $1,325.99 $464.25 $1,006.65 $42.90 $309.50 $309.50 $971.40 $266.60 $223.70 $309.50 $3,904.00 $61,400.00 $61,400.00 $576.00 $616.00 $1,192.00 $110.00 $110.00 $110.00 $330.00 $1,609.00 $1,609.00 $123.53 $123.53 $4,565.68 $4,565.68 Search Name FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL E 15-4330-490-60 EQUIPMENT REPAIR - SEWER Utility Enterprise $415.95 E 15-4330-490-60 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS - S Utility Enterprise $250.60 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 07/07/15 PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL $666.55 Search Name FRONTIER 4G&TURF EO1-4350-49O-70 Search Name FRONTIER AG & TURF Search Name GALLSDVC EO1+H1O-01ZO-2O Search Name GALL SINC, Search Name GERLACUOUTDOOR EgUPMENTMAINT PARTS 'P Parks & Recreation EVUIPMENT-PD Police EU1-4330-490fU EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS -P Parks &Recreation E01'q35O-49O-70 [QUIPMENTREPAIRPARTS-P Parks & Recreation Search Name GERL4CMOUTDOOR Search Name GERTENSGREENHOUSE [45-4334-045-45 MULCH -PAR3 Golf Course G45'2035 MULCH 'PARJ Search Name GERTENSGREENHOUSE Search Name GOODPODNTTECHNOLOGY, INC. $345.72 $40.12 $22.26 $31%.7Z E05-4301'105-15 ASSET MGMTSYSTEM Engineering Enterprise Search Name G0DP0NTTECHNOLOGY, INC. �600.00 Search Name GRABXSHOPPE EU1-4330'4qO'2O POLICE SQUAD LETTERING Police $750.00_ Search Name GRAFIX5MOPpE $750.00 Search Name GRAINGER [O8'4J]5'000-00 BLDG REPAIR SUPPLIES 'CITY SpecFds Search Name 5RAlN6ER $45.52 Search Name GR8Y8ARELECTRIC [ 28'4330-000-00 STREET LIGHTING SUPPLIES Spec Fds $571.81 Search Name GRAYBARELECTRIC $571.81 Search Name HANCO CORPORATION EO1-4]5O'49O-70 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 'P Parks 8Recreation Search Name MAN[000RPORATION $20J0 Search Name HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES E 45'4]]4-015-45 CHEMICALS -PAR] Golf Course $32.77 G15'2O]5 R4INTlNGSUPPLIES -PAR3 '$0.81 EO1'15U5-070-70 OPERATINGSUPPDES-PAKKS Parks &Recreation $65.57 EU0-4]3S'0UO'0O CLEANING SUPPLIES ' CITY MA Spec Fds $56.86 EO1'4305'05O'50 OPERATING SUPPLIES '3TREE Road &Bridges $81.19 EO8-43JS-0OO-O0 CLEANING SUPPLIES - CITY MA Spec Fds ¢8.52 EO1'43O5'O7O-7V OPERATING SUPPLIES -PARKS Parks &Recreation $84.76 EO1'4]U5-O50-50 OPERATINsSUPPDES-STREE Road &Bridges *83.88 G45 -2O]5 BLDG SUPPLIES -PAR3 -$0.55 E45-q335'O45'45 BLDG SUPPLIES -PAR3 Golf Course $8.49 EU8'4]]5'O00'00 CLEANING SUPPLIES ' CITY MA Spocpds ¢55.94 EO1'4]O5'07O-7V OPERATING SUPPLIES PARKS Parks &Recreation $52.18 G1S'ZU3S PAINT 'PAR3 '$34.57 E 45-4335-045'45 PAINT 'PAR] Golf Course $537.37 07/0/153:01PM Page 5 CITY OFMENDOTA HEIGHTS Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 07/07/15 PAY 0701/153:01RN Page 6 Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount E1E'1]]U-49O-45 EQUIPMENTRZmDKPAKTS-P Golf Course $72./6 [08 -4]3S -00U -0o oLDGMADVT SUPPLIES -CITY 5pecFds $30.66 EO1-43O5-070-70 OPEFATINGSUPPLIES-PARKS Parks &Recreation $85.77 [O8~f]3S'00O-OO PAINTING SUPPLIES - CITY HA 3msFds $4.92 E 45'4335'045'45 PAINTING SUPPLIES 'PAR] Golf Course $12.06 EU1-1305-O50-SO OPERATING SUPPLIES STRE[ Road &Bridges �$131.6� Search Name HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Administration *1,295.14 Search Name HOSE INC G45 -B035 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 'P Utility Enterprise -$4.58 E1E'1]]U-49O-45 EQUIPMENTRZmDKPAKTS-P Golf Course $72./6 Search Name HOSE INC JUNE -JULY 2O15TELEPHONE S Police $68.08 Search Name INNOVATIVE OFFICE SOLUTIONS JUNE -JULY l015TELEPHONE S [ode2nfbrcemenVInspe EU1'13O0-05O-50 OFFICE SUPPLIES 'PVV Road &Bridges $113.10 EO8-4]]5'O00-00 OFFICE FURNITURE SpacFds $1,595.19 EU1'430O'110-1O OFFICE SUPPLIES 'ADMIN Administration $24.85 [O1'4]U0'110'1O OFFICE SUPPLIES ADMIN Administration '$18.06 EO1-1]O0'110-1O OFFICE SUPPLIES 'ADMIN Administration $31.78 EVS'13OO'1O5-15 OFFICE SUPPLIES 'ENG. Engineering Enterprise $28.78 EO1'430U-11O'1U OFFICESUPPDES-ADMIN Administration $52.06 E01-43OO'11U'10 OFBCESUPPLIES-ADRlN Administration $168.01 Search Name INNOVATIVE OFFICE SOLUTIONS $1,995.71 Search Name INTEGuATELECOM E15 -421O-000-60 JUNE -JULY 2U15TELEPHONE S Utility Enterprise $277.08 EU1'4210'l10-1V JUNE -JULY 2O15TELEPHONE S Administration $331.61 EO1~f310-U2O'2O JUNE -JULY 2O15TELEPHONE S Police $207.69 E01'4210 -040'4U JUNE -JULY l015TELEPHONE S [ode2nfbrcemenVInspe $65.92 EO5'4210-1O5'15 JUNE -JULY 2O15TELEPHONES Engineering Enterprise $167.30 EO1'1Z10'OZO'2U JUNE -JULY 2O15TELEPHONE S Police $141.25 EO1-421O'O5D-50 JUNE -JULY 2O15TELEPHONE S Road &Bridges $17.09 EO1'421O'O7O'7O JUNE -JULY ZO15TELEPHONE S Parks &Recneabon $47.08 Search Name lNTEGRATELECOM Search Name ]RKSEED & TURF SUPPLY $1,349.02 Search Name INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM EU1-43J0-49U-70 BATTERY - PARKS Parks QRecreation Search Name INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM $114.95 Search Name INYEKGROVE FORD [01-4330-44O'20 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS -P Police $129.52 E01'q]]D'110'30 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS P Police $54.19� Search Name INVERGROVE FORD $183.71 Search Name ]ANUSCHKA-JOMNS,KAREN R 45'3615 JR. GOLF LEAGUE REFUND '$10.00 G45'2O35 JR. GOLF LEAGUE REFUND $6.58 R45-J3U5 JR. GOLF LEAGUE REFUND $92.42� Search Name ]ANU6[HKA-JOHNS,KAREN $89.00 Search Name ]RKSEED & TURF SUPPLY E15'4]OE-000'd0 OPERE^TINGSUPPLIES 'S[YVE Utility Enterprise �N65.70� Search Name ]RKSEED & TURF SUPPLY $05J0 Search Name KREMEKSERVICES, LLC CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 07/07/15 PAY page 76 07/01/153:01PM Page 7 Account Comments - DEPT Descr Amount E 01-4330-460-30 EQUIPMENT REPAIR - FIRE DE Fire $1,426.61 Search Name xnsMsnSERVICES, LLC $1,42001 Search Name LELS GO1-2075 JULY ZO15UNION DUES $611.00 G01 -307S JUNE 2U15UNION DUES $94.00 Search Name LEL5 $705.00 Search Name LAWRENCE, MEREDITH [U1'411S-O7O-7U MILEAGE REIMB. ' M. LAWREN Parks &Recreation 160.95 Search Name LAWRENCE, MEREDITH $60.95 Search Name LAWS0NPRODUCTS, INC EO1-4305'O7U'7O OPERATING SUPPLIES 'PARKS Parks &Recreation $81/8_ Search Name LAVVS0NPRODUCTS, INC $81.48 Search Name LEAGUE MN CITIES E81'14OO'02O-ZU PATROLSUBSCRIPTION Police $113.34 Search Name LEAGUE MNCITIES $113.34 Search Name LOGIS EV1-13O1'U]U-]U APPLICATION SUPPORT 'FIRE Fire $59.00 EO1-4Z2O'114'1,q NETWORK SERVICE Info Tech $1,496.25 EU1-1220'114-14 NETWORK SERVICE 'CONTR0 Info Tech $840.00 EO1-12Z3'02O'2O APPLICATION SUPPORT 'PD Police ���51.00_ Search Name LOGIS $1,846.25 Search Name LOVVESBUSINESS ACCOUNT EO1-4J3h-O5O'50 MAILBOX REPAIRS Road &Bridges $38.23_ Search Name LOWESBUSINESS ACCOUNT $38.23 Search Name LYNN PEAVEY COMPANY E01-q3O5'O2U-ZO EVIDENCE SUPPLIES 'PD Police Search Name LYNN PEAVEY COMPANY $211.50 Search Name MAUEKCHEVROLET EO1-1]]0-4O0-30 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 'F One $81.11 EO1'433O-46O-3O EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS -F Fire $33.98 [O1'1]3O-q60-5O EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 'F Fie $181.43_ Search Name M4UEnCHEVROLET $299.52 Search Name MAZzrTELU],JOHN E05-4415-105 15 JUNE 2015MILEAGE R[[MB. Engineering Enterprise Search Name MAZzzTELU],JOHN $57.50 Search Name MC[xRTMYWELL [O E 45-1234'015-45 ANNUAL WELL PUMP INSP. -P Golf Course $245.00 Search Name MC[AKTHYWELL CO $245.00 Search Name MCGILLVERY,TEKRI GO1'ZO]5 PARK PERMIT REFUND $3.33 R01'3]O6 PARK PERMIT REFUND $46.67_ Search Name MCGzLLVERY,TERRI $50.00 Search Name MENARD5 page 77 CITY OF��ENDOTA HEIGHTS 07/01/15u�1�m Page Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 07107/15 PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount E 01-4435-200-70 TENNIS PROGRAM SUPPLIES Parks & Recreation $8.75 EO8-1]35'O0O-0O BLDG MAlNT.SUPPLIES CITY 5pecFds $29.96 EO1'1]05'07O'7O OPERATING SUPPLIES 'SHOP Parks &Recreation $32.49 E05'4]0S'105'15 ' OPERATING SUPPLIES 'ENG. Engineering Enterprise $34.95 EOD-«]]5'VO0'O0 BLDGMAINT.SUPPLIES-CITY Spec Fds $27.69 E 15'4385-000-00 OPERATINGSUPPLIES-SEmE Utility Enterprise ¢21.76 [15'430S-OOO'OO OPERATING SUPPLIES -5EYVE Utility Enterprise $30.02 EU1'4305'O50'5O OPERATING SUPPLIES 'SHOP Road &Bridges $32.50 E08'43]5-OOO'0O BLDG MAINT.SUPPLIES CITY 5pecpds $3.8� Search Name MENARDS $400.00 Search Name MENDAKOTACOUNTRY CLUB E01'149O'1O9-09 4TH OFJULY FIREWORKS City Council Search Name M[NoAKUTACOUNTRY CLUB $4\000.00 Search Name METRO SALES E01-433O-1*O-2U QUARTERLY COPIER MAINTEN Police $276.06 E0l'4]]U'49O-7O QUARTERLY COPIER MAIN7ZN Parks &Recreation $65.90 EO1'1]3U'490-10 QUARTERLY COPIER MAlNTEN Administration $191.53 EO1'4]3O'115-4O QUARTERLY COPIER MAINTEN CodeEnfooement/Inspa $39.54 EO1'4]OO'11U-1O OFFICE SUPPLIES Administration $370.31 E15'4330'190'h0 QUARTERLY COPIER MAINTEN Utility Enterprise $39.54 E 45'4305'045-45 QUARTERLY COPIER MAINTEN Golf Course $3.29 EO5'43]O'q9U-15 QUARTERLY COPIER MAINTEN Engineering Enterprise $36.25 E01-4300-UO0'8O QUARTERLY COPIER MAJNTEN Planning $32.95_ ~ Search Name METRO SALES $1,305.40 Search Name METZsNAPPRAISALS E1] -449O -000'O0 APPRAISAL FOR 11O9BOURN L 5pecFgs $500.00 Search Name METZENAPPRAISALS $500.00 Search Name MIKES SHOE REPAIR INC E01'qq10'O5O-5U EQUIPMENT -STREETS Road &Bridges $620.50 EO1-141O'O7O'7O EQUIPMENT 'PARKS Parks &Recreation $537.00 E15'4410'000 -U0 EgUIPMENT-SEVVER Utility Enterprise $150.00 EO1-4]05'155'3O PROTECDYEGEARREAPlR-Fl Fina �$89.00 Search Name MIKES SHOE REPAIR INC $1,402J0 Search Name MmBENEFIT ASSN GO1'2O7z JULY 2015 PREMIUM $15^79_ Search Name MNBENEFIT ASSN $15.79 ` Search Name MNFIRE SERVICE CERTIFICATION E01'44O]-O3U-3O FFIlEXAMS ' FIRE DEPT Fire $140.00 EO1-4403-O30-3O UAZMAT EXAMS ' FIRE DEPT Fire $150.00_ Search Name MNFIRE SERVICE CERTIFICATION $290.00 Search Name MN5TADMIN DGTELECOM SRYCE EOz'42B-0Z0-Z0 MAY 2015 WAN SERVICE Police *121.00 E01'4zz0-U30'30 MAY 2015SERVICE Fire $88.87 E01-42ZU-13]-1O MAY 2O15WAN SERVICE Administration $111.00 EO1'121O'O3V-30 APR ZO1SSERVICE Fire Search Name Mm5TADMIN DGTELECOM SRYCE $411.74 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 07/07/15 PAY 0701/153:01PM Page 9 Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount G 01-2075 JUNE 2015 UNION DUES $620.00 Search Name MN TEAMSTERS LOCAL 320 $60.00 Search Name MN WANNER COMPANY EU1-43]0-490-7O EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 'P Parks &Recreation $306.00 Search Name MNWANNER COMPANY $306.00 Search Name MNPEA GU1-2075 JULY 2015 UNION DUES $156.00 Search Name MNPEA $15680 Search Name MOGELSON,MEGAN KO1']]O5 5KYHAwKCAMP REFUND $99.00_ Search Name MO5[LSON,MEGAN $99.00 Search Name MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES EUl'14O]'U]O'3O SUPPLIES ' FIRE DEPT Fire $98,27_ Search Name MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES $98.27 Search Name NCPERSGROUP LIFE INS. G01'2O71 JULY 2O15PREMIUM $96.00_ Search Name NCP[KSGROUP LIFE INS. $96.00 Search Name NOA[K,GEORGE E01 -441U -O50'50 EQUIPMENT REPAIR R[IMBUR Road &Bridges $94.95 Search Name NOA[K,GEORGE $94.95 Search Name NORTHERN TECHNOLOGIES, INC [Z2'12ZO'7h5-0U SlBLEYMEMORIAL TKLPKO]E SpecFds Search Name NORTHERN TECHNOLOGIES, INC $936.00 Search Name NORTHLAND CHEMICAL E01'4305'O7O-7O OPERATING SUPPLIES 'PARKS Parks &Recreation Search Name NORTHLAND CHEMICAL $96.00 Search Name NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY E01-14OO-030-2D TRAINING E. PETERSEN Police p,900.00 EO1-44U0'110-1O MEETING T.5[MUTTA Administration $22.00_ Search Name NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY $3,922.00 Search Name OFFICE DEPOT E01'4]0O-02O-20 OFFICE SUPPLIES 'PD Police Search Name OFFICE DEPOT $200.49 Search Name OREILLYAUTO/FIRST CALL EO1-4330'^6U-3O EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 'p p|m ¢8.09 E0z-4]U5'OS0-50 OPER. SUPPLIES 'SHOP Road &Bhdges $39.95 EO1'1]U5'07O-7O OPER. SUPPLIES SHOP Parks &Recreation $39.95 EO1'1]]D-490'70 EQUIPMENTREPAIRPARTS-P Parks &Recreation $2.99 EO1'4]]0-190-50 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS '5 Road 8Bridges $36.65 E01'1]05-U5O-50 OPER. SUPPLIES 'SHOP Road &Bridges $18.5* EU1-4330-q90'70 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 'P Parks &Recreation $7.98 [D1 -4]]U-460-30 EQUIPMENT REPAIR �DKPAR]�-p m $192.54 Search Name OREILLYAUTO/FIRST CALL $346.69 Search Name PILGRIM, LESLIE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 07/07/15 PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount s8n-4*d0-788-0o VICTORIA noPROJECT Spec -as Search Name PILGRIM, LESLIE $1,061.04 Search Name PITNEY BOWES EO1-4318-08D-8O 2O152ND QTR RENTAL E 15-4200 -610-60 2015 2ND QTR RENTAL EO1-42OO-61O-7V ZU152ND QTR RENTAL EO1-4]18-04D'1O Z0152ND QTR RENTAL E01'1Z0O-01O']O I0152ND QTR RENTAL EOz-4200'd10'Z0 Z0152ND QTR RENTAL EO5'qlOO-61O-15 2015 2ND QTR RENTAL E01-43OO-01O-18 ZO152ND QTR RENTAL Search Name PITNEY BOWES Search Name RONSMECHANICAL KO1'325] PERMIT REFUND PO1']31S PERMIT REFUND Search Name RONSMECHANICAL Search Name ROY CINC EU8'4]35'O0UO0 DOOR REPAIR CITY HALL Search Name ROY C INC Search Name S&3TREE SPECIALISTS EO1'45OO-0SO-50 TREE REMOVAL Search Name S&STREE SPECIALISTS Search Name SELECT ACCOUNT E1S-4220-06O-6Q EO1-422O'OD}2O E01'122O-V7U'70 EV1-42Z0-11U'1O E01-422O'O5O-SO EO1-4Z2U-O7O'/0 E01'4Z20-08O-8O [U5'1Z2O'1O5-1S E15-4Z2O~Oh0'6U E01-1Z0'U2O'2O EU1-4Z2O-11U'1O E01-1220-UzU'2O EO1'92ZO-050-5O EO5^;2ZO'1O5'z5 EOi'422O-110-1U EO1-42ZU-08O'8O Search Name SELECT ACCOUNT Search Name S0ERVEN,GORDON EO1-44OOfDO-30 Search Name SK3ERVEN, GORDON Search Name SNAP ON TOOLS EU1-43O5-05O 50 EO1-4]U5-070-70 E1S'43US'Oh0-6U JUNE Z015HSA PARTICIPANT MAY 2O15HSA PARTICIPANT F JUNE 2O15HSA PARTICIPANT MAY 2O15HSA PARTICIPANT F MAY ZO15HSA PARTICIPANT F MAY 2V15HSA PARTICIPANT F MAY 2015 HSA PARTICIPANT F MAY ZO15HSA PARTICIPANT p MAY ZO15HSA PARTICIPANT F MAY 2O15HSA PARTICIPANT F JUNE Z01SHSA PARTICIPANT JUNE ZO1SHSA PARTICIPANT JUNE 2O15HSA PARTICIPANT JUNE 301SHSA PARTICIPANT JUNE ZU15HSA PARTICIPANT JUNE ZD15HSA PARTICIPANT Planning Utility Enterprise Parks & Recreation [odeEnforoynenVInspe Fire Police Engineering Enterprise Administration Road & Bridges Utility Enterprise Police Parks & Recreation Administration Road &Bridges Parks &Recreation Planning Engineering Enterprise Utility Enterprise Police Administration Police Road mBridges Engineering Enterprise Administration Planning TRAVEL EXPENSE 'G.30ERVE Fie OPERATING SUPPLIES -SHOP Road &8hdge OPERATING SUPPLIES SHOP Parks &Recreation OPERATING SUPPLIES 'SHOP Utility Enterprise $7.73 $14.17 $3.86 $18.03 $16.75 $2.58 $128.82 $75.00 $5,88500 $24.12 $24.12 $24.11 0r01/153:01 PM Page 10 E 08-4131-000-0 E15-11]1-0hU-6U EO1-41J1'11U-1U EO1'1131'O20'2O EO1'1131-0SO'5O EO1-113l'O70'7U E05 -11]1'1O5'15 GOz'071 Search Name SUN LIFE Search Name T MOBILE E01 -421O -070-7O Search Name T MOBILE Search Name TOTAL TOOL JULY 2015 LIFE AND STDISBI JULY 015LIFE AND STDISBI JULY 2V15LIFE AND 3TDISDI JULY ZO15LIFE AND STOBBI JULY ZO15LIFE AND STDISBI JULY Z015LIFE AND 3TDIS8l JULY 2015 LIFE AND STDlSBI JULY 20z5LIFE AND STDISBl Spec Fds Utility Enterprise Administration Police Road &8hdge Parks &Recreation Engineering Enterprise MAY ZO1SCELL SERVICE 'PAR Parks &Recreation $85.15 $292.88 $531.55 $234.23 $217.49 $118.88 $1,358.06 ��29.03 page 80 CITY OF��END��TA HEIGHTS o�o1�s�u�nw Page 11 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 07/07/15 PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name SNAP 0NTOOLS $72.35 Search Name5PRVVS E 08-4425'000'00 MAY 2015 SEuYI[E-CnY HAL Spec Fds $77.31 E01-4125']15-]0 MAY Z015SERVICE FIRE HAL Fire $98.03 E 01'*125'070-70 MAY 2O15SERVICE PARKS Parks &Recreation $102.28 E 15'4425'310-60 MAY 2O15SERVICE ' PW Utility Enterprise ¢19.34 [O1'44Z5-31O'7O MAY ZO15SERVICE ' PW Parks &Recreation $19.34 E01-41I5'310'5U MAY 201SSERVICE ' R0 Road &Bridges ¢19.31 [O1'4425-O7O-7O MAY 2O15SERVICE - PARKS Parks 0Recreation $95.37� Search Name 3PKVYS $131.01 Search Name STANTECCONSULTING SERVICES EO1-422O'1]5-0U PLANNING ASSISTANCE Planning $335.00 Search Name STANTECCONSULTING SERVICES $335.00 Search NameSTKElCHERS EO1'4410'OZ0-ZU UNInJuM-P. FL[MING Police $100.99 E 01-4306'020-20 UNIFORMS & EQUIPMENT- P. Police $49.98 E 01-1306'020'20 UNIFORMS & EQUIPMENT ' P. Police $151.97 E 01-4306'030-20 UNIFORMS 8 EQUlPRENT' P. Police $188.97 E 01-4306-020-20 UNIFORMS & EOUIPMENT' P. Police *7.99 E 01'1306'020'20 UNIFORMS 8 EQUIPMENT ' P. Police $161.91 E 01'4306-020-20 UNIFORMS & EQUIPMENT' P. Pn||ca $89.98 E 01-1306'020'20 UNIFORMS & EQUIPMENT ' P. Police $1,291J0 EO1-4410-02O'20 UNIFORM -3. MEYER Police $69.99 pO1'4]OO'02O-2D UNIFORMS &EQUIPMENT P. Police Search Name STREI[MERS $2,338.48 Search Name SULLIVAN, TERRY E 08'4190'000'00 KElMBUKSEMENT' LICENSE Spec Fds Search Name SULLIVAN, TERRY $75.00 Search Name SUMMIT FIRE PROTECTION EO8-1]35'O0O'0O ANNUAL INSPECTION -CDYH Spec Fds $175.00 [O1 -43]0 -49U -S0 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS S Road &Bridges $50.00 EO1-4]3D'190-70 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS P Parks 0Recreation Search Name SUMMIT FIRE PROTECTION $275.00 Search Name SUN LIFE E 08-4131-000-0 E15-11]1-0hU-6U EO1-41J1'11U-1U EO1'1131'O20'2O EO1'1131-0SO'5O EO1-113l'O70'7U E05 -11]1'1O5'15 GOz'071 Search Name SUN LIFE Search Name T MOBILE E01 -421O -070-7O Search Name T MOBILE Search Name TOTAL TOOL JULY 2015 LIFE AND STDISBI JULY 015LIFE AND STDISBI JULY 2V15LIFE AND 3TDISDI JULY ZO15LIFE AND STOBBI JULY ZO15LIFE AND STDISBI JULY Z015LIFE AND 3TDIS8l JULY 2015 LIFE AND STDlSBI JULY 20z5LIFE AND STDISBl Spec Fds Utility Enterprise Administration Police Road &8hdge Parks &Recreation Engineering Enterprise MAY ZO1SCELL SERVICE 'PAR Parks &Recreation $85.15 $292.88 $531.55 $234.23 $217.49 $118.88 $1,358.06 ��29.03 CITY OFMENDOTA HEIGHTS Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 07/07/15 PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount E 01-4330-490-50 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS - S Road & Bridges $260.20 Search Name TOTAL TOOL $260.20 Search Name TRACTOR SUPPLY EO1-441U-050-SO Search Name TRACTOR SUPPLY Search Name TRI STATE BOBCAT EO1-43JO-49O-5O ED1-4]3O'19O-5O Search Name TRI STATE BOBCAT BOOTS 'G.NOACK Road 0Bridges EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS '5 Road & Bridges $18934 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 'S Road 8Bridges $261.09 Search Name TRIANGLE RUBBISH &RECYCLING EO1-43]5-315-3Q MAY ZO15SERVICE ' FIRE HAL Fire Search Name TRIANGLE RUBBISH & RECYCLING Search Name TWIN CITIES OCCUPATIONAL MLTM EO1~}21q-03UgU MEDICAL EXAM FIRE DEPT Fire EO1~122O-O5O'5O TEST -PW Road &Bridges Search Name TWIN CITIES OCCUPATIONAL MLTU Search Name TWIN CITY TELEPHONE EO1-4]35']1O-5O EO1-4]3O-410-2U EO1-433O-440'2O E01'4]35 -31D-70 E15 -43]5 -]1O -DO Search Name TWIN CITY TELEPHONE Search Name UNIFORMS UNLIMITED E01-43Uh-020-2O E01'44l0'030'ZO EO1~1110'U30'3O E01-4410-O20-lO EU1-441O-0ZO'2O EO1'q110'OIO'2D 201'14lO'O2O'ZO E01~f410'O3O-20 E01-4410-OZO-2O EO1-441U-O20'Z0 E01'4]Vd-OZ0-2O E01~f110'O2U-20 [O1-4]06020-20 EOl-441U{DO-ZU Search Name UNIFORMS UNLIMITED EQUIPMENT REPAIR 'R* Road &Bridges EQUIPMENT REPAIR -PD Police TELEPHONE SET-UP 'PD Police EQUIPMENT REPAIR ' Rm Parks QRecreation EQUIPMENT REPAIR - PW Utility Enterprise UNIFORM & EQUIPMENT S.H Police UNIFORM M.REYES Police UNIFORM B. LAMBERT Police UNIFOoM-].LARRIVE Police UNIFORM - R. NELSON Police UNIFORM T.SPl[ER Police UNIFORM '].VONFELDT Police UNIFORM - E. PETERSEN Police UNIFORM 'M.ASCUENBRENNE Police UNIFORM 'T RO55E Police UNIFORM & EQUIPMENT -P.M Police UNIFORM M.ASCM[NBRENNE Police UNIFORM & EQUIPMENT 'S.M Police EQUIPMENT 'M.KEYES Police Search Name VALLEY IMAGES PHOTOGRAPHY EO1-449O'0Z0-2D DEPT PICTURES PD Rdke Search Name VALLEY IMAGES PHOTOGRAPHY Search Name VALSPAR PAINT E01'4]3D'Z15'7O PAINT & SUPPLIES ' MARIE MO Parks QRecreation Search Name VALSPAR PAINT Search Name VON[ELDT ]EpFORY $117.84 $590.90 $132.49 $127.79 $119.97 $68.50 $454.93 $168.98 $191.67 $204.13 $263.50 $15].49 $51.50 page 81 0701/15 3:01 PM Page 12 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ' Claims List SYSTEM,CHEcKS 07/07/15 PAY page 82 07/01053:01RN Page 13 Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount soz-44O0-02O'z0 TUITION 0EIMB.'lV0NFELD Police Search Name VONFELDT,JEpFORY $4,620u0 Search Name WDNBELDSOLUTIONS, LLC E 45'1]]4-045-45 CHEMICALS -PAR3 Golf Course Search Name VVINFIELDSOLUTIONS, LLC $201.09 Search Name YYINGE,DAVID EOl'14OO'0]0']O TRAYELEXPENSE- D. YVINGE Fire $15.07 Search Name VYINGE,DAVID *15.07 Search Name VYIRTZBEVERAGE MINNESOTA [45'4]1V-205-15 BEVERAGES 'PAR3 Golf Course $327.20 Search Name VYlnT7BEVERAGE MINNESOTA $327.20 Search Name YALE MECHANICAL E01-1335-]15']0 SPRING MAlNT.'FIRE HALL Fire $788.93_ Search Name YALE MECHANICAL $788.93 $186,275.56 2015 licensing List for City Council Type Contract®r Name Drywall Excavating General HVAC Landscape Masonry Sign Competition Drywall, LLC M.M. Miller Brothers Excavating, Inc r_n1154NOr1r•r l Four Seasons Energy Efficient Roofing, Inc PR Wall Systems St. Paul Construction Company The Hammersmith Company Academy Heating & Air, Inc Airic's Heating, LLC OT Heating & Cooling, LLC Total Comfort Ditch Creek Landscape, LLC Neeck Construction Tom Otterdahl Signcrafters Outdoor page 83 Sp. Wednesday, July 1, 2015 Page 1 of I page 84 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Sq. 651.452.1850 phone 1651.452.89 www.mendota•heights.com CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: July 7, 2015 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP, MBA — Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Ordinance for Parking Restriction — North Side of Enterprise Drive BACKGROUND This past May, City staff was made aware of a parking situation impacting business traffic on Enterprise Drive. Seasonal employee parking overflow from Southview Design is utilizing Enterprise Drive for parking during the work day. They were utilizing both sides of the street east of Pilot Knob. Enterprise Drive is 44 -feet wide, so there is room for on -street parking on both sides of the street while maintaining one travel lane in each direction. The issue is that parking on both sides of the street interferes with truck movements into and out of area businesses. Staff has been in contact with several property owners along Enterprise Drive, and they have all agreed that single -side parking would likely solve the truck movement issue. Staff has also contacted Southview Design and presented the problem. They agreed to have their employees park on the south side of Enterprise Drive only. The Southview Design facility was designed compliant with City Code based on the use and square footages of use on the property. The attached Ordinance would formally codify this on -street parking arrangement described above; allowing parking on the south side of Enterprise Drive, and prohibiting parking on the north side. BUDGETIMPACT Other than the costs of Ordinance publication and sign manufacture, no significant costs are anticipated. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council adopt the attached ORDINAINCE No. 481 — AN ORDINAINCE AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 3, OF THE CITY CODE TO PROHIBIT PARKING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ENTERPRISE DRIVE. page 85 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 481 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 3 OF THE CITY CODE TO PROHIBIT PARKING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ENTERPRISE DRIVE The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota ordains as follows: SECTION 1 The following language is added to Section 6-3-3C — Parking Prohibited on Certain Streets: Enterprise Drive North Between Mendota Heights Road and Pilot Knob Road Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this seventh day of July 2015. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST Lorri Smith, City Clerk For publication: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS page 86 DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 481 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 3 OF THE CITY CODE TO PROHIBIT PARKING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ENTERPRISE DRIVE The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota ordains as follows: SECTION 1 The following language is added to Section 6-3-3C. Parking Prohibited on Certain Streets: Enterprise Drive North rBetween Mendota Heights Roadand Pilot Knob Road Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this seventh day of July 2015. CITY COUNCIL OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS /s/Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor Attest: /s/ Lorri Smith, City Clerk Print Preview Page 1 of 1 page 87 Dakota C,-,. `ty, �outhview Design Property - Proposed 'No 'r., Parking' Area 4 DFsclairner- Map and parcel data are believed do be accurate, bwtaecuraey rs not guaranteed_ Thrs is not a legal Map Sc'c c document and should not be substituted fora title search appraisal survey, or forroning reriicativn_ Dakota County 1 inch = 252 feet assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. 7/1/2015 http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGISIWebFonnsIPrint.aspx?img=http:Hgis.co.dakota.mn.us/Co... 7/1/2015 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Sr. DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES June 10, 2015 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at Mendota Heights City Hall. The following commissioners were present: David Sloan, Gina Norling, Sally Lorberbaum, Kevin Byrnes, Jim Neuharth, and Arvind Sharma Absent: William Dunn (excused) Also present: Public Works Director/City Engineer John R. Mazzitello, and City Administrator Mark McNeill Chair Sloan called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm. Approval of Minutes Neuharth moved, and Norling seconded that the minutes of the March 11, 2015 Airport Relations Commission meeting be approved. All voted in favor. Norling moved, and Lorberbaum seconded that the minutes of the May 12, 2015 Airport Relations Commission meeting with the City of Eagan be approved. All voted in favor. Sharma asked if a copy of the presentation from the May 12, 2015 meeting with Eagan be made available to the Commissioners. Administrator McNeill stated he would try to get a copy forwarded to the Commissioners. Unfinished and New Business McNeill presented information about an upcoming Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) noise survey. The survey will be conducted at 20 airports via mail and phone and will not be announced in advance. If area residents start getting phone calls over the course of the next year, we will know MSP was a selected airport for the survey. Data collection will be complete in 2016 McNeill presented an update on the Phoenix RNAV/Next Gen process. Lorberbaum complimented Byrnes on his diligence in collecting articles on this and other topics and suggested the City look at re - subscribing to the Airport Noise Report. A subscription is $850/year. Lorberbaum suggested sharing a subscription with Eagan. McNeill states he could look into that possibility. Norling addressed a recent trend in early morning departures over Mendota Heights. The departures begin at 5:08am and have remained consistent through May and June. Sloan asked if the on-line flight tracker has verified these departures. Norling asked if we could have someone from MAC at an upcoming meeting (August?) to address early morning departures as part of their presentation; possibly Dana Nelson. McNeill proposed scheduling an airport tour as the July meeting and proposed July 8th or July 22nd for a potential tour. McNeill asked about a date to present the Commission Annual Work Plan to the City Council. Sloan agreed to look at potential Council dates in July or August. Second meeting of the month is preferred due to typically lighter agendas. Reports on Areas of Focus Neuharth presented operations statistics noting April total departures on 12R exceeded the Upper Control Limit (UCL) established by the Commission. If total departures do not drop back below the UCL, the City should seek an explanation from MAC. Norling reviewed the noise sensor monitoring data and reported no anomalies in the data. 2005 data collected to compare total number of decibel exceedances showed over twice as many exceedances in 2005 as compared to today. Sloan suggested comparing the numbers as a function of total operations over Mendota Heights. Byrnes asked of RNAV was still a top issue at MSP. Sharma said he would continue to attend the monthly MAC meetings, but thought we might be able to attend quarterly and watch on-line for the other months. Topics covered included a resident complaint about the $6 million concourse renovation, the next crash exercise is scheduled for 2018, and the continuing trend of passengers increasing while flights are decreasing. Also discussed were the noise impacts of the reduction in commuter planes. Sharma also stated there was a discussion about the minimum wage protests at the May meeting and that MSP has won awards for food & beverage concessions, as well as for cost/flight. Commissioner Comments None. Adiourn Lorberbaum made a motion to adjourn and Norling seconded at 7:59. All voted in favor. 2 page 88 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota N7a. 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.89 ` www.mendota-heights.con T mCITY OF MENDIDTA HEIGHTS DATE: July 7, 2015 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Saint Thomas Academy Scoreboard Replacement Project BACKGROUND As described in the attached letter, Saint Thomas Academy would like to replace the scoreboard on the main athletic field/track on campus. The existing scoreboard has been in-place since 1994 and is not fully - functional for the variety of events held at the field. hi April 2014, the Council adopted Ordinance 460 allowing electronic display signs. The definition of such a sign is as follows: SIGN, ELECTRONIC DISPLAY.- A sign or portion thereof that displays electronic, nonpictorial, text information in which each alphanumeric character is defined by a small number of matrix elements using different combinations of light emitting diodes (LEDs), fiber optics, light bulbs, or other illumination devices within the display area. Electronic display signs include computer programmable, microprocessor controlled electronic displays. A scoreboard being used during an organized sporting event shall not be considered a sign. [12 -IB -2] While scoreboards were intentionally excluded from the definition, video message board components were not discussed as part of the code amendment process. Staff invited representatives from the school to present their plans to the Council in order to determine if additional permitting is necessary. BUDGETIMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council discuss the proposed scoreboard replacement project and provide direction on any necessary permitting that may be required. This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 89 SAINT THOMAS ACADEMY :W To: Mendota Heights City Council From: Paul Solmon Date: July 1, 2015 Re: Athletic Field Scoreboard Replacement at Saint Thomas Academy Saint Thomas Academy desires to replace the 1994 scoreboard on our main athletic field. When installed it was the current technology in scoreboards, today it is antiquated and at the end of its service life. On numerous occasions it has become an issue due to failures during events. Additionally the 1994 scoreboard was designed primarily as a Football scoreboard, and while we make it work for Soccer and Lacrosse it does not have the capability to serve as a Track & Field scoreboard. The proposed scoreboard represents the current technology in scoreboards. After contacting several scoreboard manufacturers, I can say with confidence that any current technology digital scoreboard is made up of various components. The obsolete fixed -digit scoreboards (like our 94' scoreboard) come in essentially one piece, but are limited in the functions they can perform. The proposed scoreboard would give Saint Thomas Academy one scoreboard that could function for all of the current athletic events we hold on the field: Football, Soccer, Lacrosse, and Track & Field. After reviewing several mockups of our proposed replacement scoreboard with Mendota Heights City Staff, we are invited to attend the 7/7 Council meeting to discuss the proposed replacement scoreboard. City staff informed us that potential issues regarding scoreboards were discussed when the code was amended to allow electronic display signage — and they were purposely excluded, "A scoreboard being used during an organized sporting event shall not be considered a sign." Staff also noted that the video message board component of a scoreboard was not discussed and wanted to have Council feedback on this aspect before making a determination on any variance or permitting. After having read the signage section of the City Code numerous times, I believe all scoreboards including those with a video message board component should not be considered a sign. All of the currently in place scoreboards within Mendota Heights would require a variance if they lost the scoreboard exemption. We very much want to replace the scoreboard ASAP but if we go through the Variance review process, we will be forced to use the existing system until next summer. Attached is the latest mockup of the proposed replacement scoreboard. Si Paul A. Solmon Director of Facilities CC: Matthew Mohs, Headmaster 949 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA 55120 651.454.4570 651.454.4574 FAX WWW.CADETS.COM 0 00r It CID cu 0 on C) �tn w mlad *-Ian 0 a 1%% 1%% C* — 0% O C*') Rcr LM C*') O 1%% 1*0 — Rcr 1%% 40; 6 --Z C -i Lr; Ndc*06 LM 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Q!3 Rcr 1%% 1,40 C* — C*') LM " cu LU LU 0 page 92 7b. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota He gn s, 651.452.1850 phone 1651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com , T mCITY OF MENDDTA HEIGHTS DATE: July 7, 2015 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director SUBJECT: 2014 Audit Presentation BACKGROUND Kern DeWenter, Viere, Ltd. has completed the audit for 2014. The reports for 2014 are the Annual Report & Basic Financial Statements and the Communications Letter. These reports are included in your packet. Please bring both reports to the meeting for reference during the presentation. Matt Mayer from KDV will be at tonight's meeting to review the Annual Audit Report for 2014. BUDGET IMPACT There is no budget impact. RECOMMENDATION Accept the review and ask any questions you may have. 7c. WHEREAS, Saint Peter's Church, Mendota has provided spiritual guidance for 175 years to the people of the areas now known as Dakota County, Mendota, Lilydale, Mendota Heights; and WHEREAS, life for priests and pioneers included struggles, challenges, hardships and tremendous difficulties: foreigners in a foreign land, they were not deterred; and WHEREAS, Fr. Lucien Galtier, the first pastor worked tirelessly to establish Christianity; and WHEREAS, Fr. Ravoux spearheaded the construction of the stone church [35 by 75 feet] in 1853, almost doubling the size of the original wooden structure; and WHEREAS, these first priests worked with native Indians, soldiers at Fort Snelling, fur traders and farmers providing catechetical instruction; and WHEREAS, the sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet, the Sisters of Mercy, Father Muellerlie and the Precious Blood Sisters, the School Sisters of Notre Dame and dedicated lay people have provided a catholic education since 1866; and WHEREAS, cultural, social, and economic conditions caused the closing of the school in the early 1970's; and WHEREAS, since education is highly prized, a new tri -parish catholic school, Faithful Shepherd was opened in the early 2000's continuing the tradition; and WHEREAS, the oldest church in the State of Minnesota in continuous use, built from the simple beauty of local limestone, was declared an historic site by the United States Department of the Interior in 1935; and WHEREAS, many pioneers buried in the historic St. Peter's Cemetery, Tousignant, Letendre, LeMay, Beaudette and others, helped build the State of Minnesota; soldiers of the Civil War, Spanish American War, World Wars I and II, and the Korean and Vietnam wars are buried in St Peter's Cemetery; and we honor and salute these fallen heroes every Memorial Day with a prayer service; and WHEREAS, St. Peter's has been blessed with families associated with Mendota and the surrounding areas: Chapdelaine (1840's), St Martin (1840's), LeMay (1850's), Perron (1840's), Shields (1840's), O'Neill (1850's), Oster (1860's), Bernier (1840's), DesLauriers (1860's), LaCroix (1866's), LeClair (1880's), Beaudette (1840's), Wohlers (1850's), Furlong (1890's), Connolly (1940's), Culligan (1940's), Fee (1870's), Egan (1870's), Giguerre (1890's), Lilly (1900's), Welsh (1900's), Wachtler (1910's), Kennedy (1930's), Burns (1890's), Callahan (I 890's), Smith (I 920's), Tracy (1910's) , Mulvihill (I 890's), Maczko (1930's), Hoene (1930's), Marren (1930's), Kelly (1930's), Kane (1930's), Ryan (1910's), Coonan (1930's), Curley (1910's), Boland (1930's), Norman (1940's), Wild (1940's), Edwards (1930's), and Pilney (I 940's) to name just a few*; families whose descendants still live here and attend St Peter's; and page 95 8a. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.rrendota-heights.com mCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: July 7, 2015 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2015-16 After -the -Fact Critical Area Permit APPLICANT: Mark and Jennifer Foley PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1104 Sibley Memorial Highway ZONING/GUIDED: R -I One -Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: August 9, 2015 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants are seeking an after -the -fact Critical Area Permit for a retaining wall construction project. The subject parcel is located within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area and requires City Council approval before a building permit or zoning approval can be issued. BACKGROUND Staff was made aware of a retaining wall constructed without the required critical area and building permits on the subject parcel. According to the property owners, it was constructed in 2011 to replace a pre-existing timber structure in the same location. The property is for sale and the current owners would like to address the permitting issues as soon as possible. At the June 2, 2015 meeting, the applicants requested the City Council grant an exemption from Planning Commission review due to the circumstances surrounding the situation and fairly straightforward review process for such a project. The request was granted and the required public hearing will be conducted at the July 7 meeting. Due to surveying discrepancies in the immediate area, it cannot be concluded that the existing wall is constructed entirely on the applicants' property. As a result, the adjacent property owner to the east at 1680 Lexington Avenue South was asked to be a co -applicant on the critical area permit request. As indicated in the attached letter, his position is that any portion of the existing wall that is not located entirely on the applicants' property be removed at their expense. This issue will be addressed prior to issuance of an after - the -fact building permit, which is not considered as part of this case. ANALYSIS Critical Area Permit The purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is to: page 96 Title 12-3-2: "...prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national resource to promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas, to preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an essential element in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems... " According to the applicants, the pre-existing timber structure was in disrepair and was replaced with the existing modular block structure. The original structure had the following benefits: • Allowed a "switchback" driveway alignment to reduce the grade • Provided two additional off-street parking spaces • Reduced the average grade of the turfed areas to reduce runoff and increase infiltration The existing modular block system has the following benefits: • Durable product that does not release chemicals • Accommodates curved alignments to soften appearance Retaining walls in the Critical Area are limited to five feet in height and must be constructed of native stone or wood. As shown on plans provided as part of the application, the wall height for each of the three tiers are compliant. In addition, the modular block wall is brown and blends in well with the natural environment. Due to the after -the -fact nature of the permitting process in this case, and because the existing wall replaced another structure, detailed information regarding the grading and construction activities are not available and are therefore not analyzed in this report. Building Permit An after -the -fact building permit is also required for this project to be considered compliant, but is not necessary as part of the required Council action in this case. According to both property owners, they have reached an agreement on the location of the existing retaining wall and any blocks within the disputed area will be removed. If that is accomplished to their satisfaction, the City can issue an after -the -fact building permit. INTERAGENCY REVIEW In addition to the public and private property owners within 350 feet of the subject parcel, public hearing notices and application materials were sent to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and City of Lilydale for review and comment; as of July 1, no comments from either agency were received. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approval of the after -the -fact Critical Area Permit request for the existing retaining wall structure based on the findings of fact that the request meets the policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District, with the condition that the applicants obtain an after -the -fact building permit. OR 2. Denial of the Critical Area Permit requests for the existing retaining wall structure based on the findings of fact that the application does not meet the policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District. OR 3. Table the request. page 97 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the after -the -fact Critical Area Permit request for the existing retaining wall structure based on the findings of fact that the request meets the policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District, with the condition that the applicants obtain an after -the -fact building permit (Alternative 1). ACTION REQUESTED Following a public hearing, if the City Council desires to implement the recommendation, it should pass a motion adopting RESOLUTION 2015-51 APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AT 1104 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Aerial site map 2. Site photo 3. Planning applications, including supporting materials page 98 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2015-51 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AT 1104 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY WHEREAS, Mark and Jennifer Foley and Keith Ostrosky have applied for an after -the -fact critical area permit as proposed in Planning Case 2015-16 and described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights City Council held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting on July 7, 2015. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the after -the -fact critical area permit as proposed in Planning Case 2015-16 is hereby approved based on the findings of fact that the request meets the policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the after -the -fact critical area permit as proposed in Planning Case 2015-16 is hereby approved with the condition that the applicants obtain an after -the -fact building permit. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this seventh day of July, 2015. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST: Lorri Smith, City Clerk Planning Case 2015-16 1104 Sibley Memorial Highway Date: 7/1/2015 t 0 30 SCALE IN FEET City of Mendota Heights GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. T R r _ f 40 z Y 1 page 101 TO: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: MARK AND JENNIFER FOLEY, RESIDENTS OF MENDOTA IEIGITS SUBJECT: CRITICAL AREA PERMIT DATE: MAY 28, 2015 Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: In early May 2015, the City of Mendota Heights contacted us indicating that we did not obtain the proper critical area and building permits required for a retaining wall that we had constructed in June - July of 2011, to replace an existing retaining wall structure. We recognize now these permits were required, but when being constructed we were not aware of these requirements. The retaining wall replaced a timber structure wall d7at was falling down and was in desperate need of replacement. We did use a very qualified company to replace this wall. Before the new wall we experienced several problems with wash -outs onto Highway 13, and feel die new wall offers proper drainage and has more structural integrity then the old one drat was on the property when we purchased it. We are also aware the retaining wall has been in question as to whether or not it is on a neighbor's property. We do not know for certain if tis wall is in fact, on their property and a survey has not been done to determine dnis. The new wall was built to replace the existing wall and in its exact location. It was never our intention to deceive the city when building dhis replacement wall and we would have obtained tie proper permits had we known of the critical area and building permits. We would also greatly appreciate your leniency, after hearing and reading the facts, when determining what fees, if any, we are obligated of. Our house is currently for sale, and we want to ensure tnis does not jeopardize any pending offers. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Mark andiennifer FoCey Mark and Jennifer Foley June 1St, 2015 Addendum to permit application Regarding Critical Area Retaining Wall permit and Building permit for: 1104 Sibley memorial Highway Mendota Heights MN 55118 To clarify: 1, Keith Ostrosky of 1680 Lexington Ave S. Mendota Heights, MN 55118 am signing this permit "only" to give permission to have the neighbors retaining wall removed off my property. Complete removal of retaining wall and any/ all costs related including but not limited to: permits,, survey, removal of debris, restoring land to previous condition is at the sole expense of the owner of 1104 Sibley Memorial Highway, Mendota Heights, NIN 55118 I am not agreeing to any restrictions, declarations, covenants or easements on my land, resulting from this retaining wall, which is encumbering my land. I am agreeing to have the property owner of 1104 Sibley Memorial Highway, Mendota Heights, remove the retaining wall that is on my property. Sincerely, Keith ostrosky page 103 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax wwwxnendota-heights.corn CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Property Address/Street Location: do'-/ '-91^b1eVA'fnoriA& v. 'fin A 00 Applicant Name: 114art kn4l4r- F0 Lev Phone: 105/- 24f-lle751 Applicant E -Mail Add Applicant Mailing Ad( Property Owner Name:/*_/- k 4-7' kn!q Eqr Fc)�'_/ Phone:&) 661- &f--I-lk7 Property Owner Mailing Address: 3dou q,',416atl Legal Description &.j -PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) 7 - - 7- ? ,,,, 7-8 f2�. nd - J 7 — <d.4 * / -Z Pl,"• Z.7" o 2 3 CyA — ro' — 2—( / P oe 4- : 7- 7 - 0 21 �0 o - 9-0 Ol a Type of Request: Ems= L3 Variance LJ Subdivision Approval L3 Code Amendment L3 Conditional Use Permit retlands Permit Critical Area Permit LJ Lot Split LJ Conditional Use Permit for PUD L3 Preliminary/Final Plat Approval LJ Comprehensive Plan Amendment L3 Other I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents inspect thq aboye-property during daylight hours. L nlu re A plica Date §Wiaturef Owner Date Signature of Owner (if more than one) Date Planning Application (modified 112812014) Page 1 of 1 page 104 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.4521850 phone 1 651.45Z8940 fax WWW;rnendota41ef9htv=.Jn CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS. CRITICAL AREA PERMIT REQUEST Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and/or City Council only after all required materials have been submitted. Application submittal deadlines are available on the City's website or by contacting the City Planner. Late or incomplete applications will not be put on the agenda. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: • Dated original of all the materials checked must be submitted by the end of the business day the Monday before the first Tuesday of the month. • If all original materials are 11 x 17 or smaller — only submit originals. • If materials are larger than 11 x 17, please provide 24 copies, folded to 8 Y2 x 11. • Any drawing in color — must submit 24 copies. The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: Fee, as included in Fee Schedule (check payable to City of Mendota Heights) NOTE. Planning Application fees do not cover building permit fees, utilities, or other fees which may be required for you to complete your project Completed Application Form (only original needs to be submitted). g Letter of Intent. Site Plan, prepared to a scale appropriate to the size of the project and suitable for the review to be performed, including: Location of the property, including such information as the name and numbers of adjoining roads, railroads, existing subdivisions, or other landmarks. %2( Existing topography as indicated on a contour map having a contour interval no greater than two feet (2') per contour; the contour map shall also clearly delineate any bluff line, all streams, including intermittent streams and swales, rivers, water bodies, and wetlands located on the site. ;M A plan delineating the existing drainage of the water setting forth in which direction the volume, and at what rate the stormwater is conveyed from the site in setting forth those areas on the site where stormwater collects and is gradually percolated into the ground or slowly released to stream or lake. ❑ A description of the soils on the site including a map indicating soil types by areas to be A- disturbed as well as a soil report containing information on the suitability of the soils for the type of development proposed and for the type of sewage disposal proposed and describing any remedial steps to be taken by the developer to render the soils suitable. All areas Critical Area Permit Request (modified 121612013) Page 1of2 Y/ page 105 proposed for grading shall be identified by soil type, both as to soil type of existing topsoil and soil type of the new contour. The location and extent of any erosion areas shall be included in the soils description. • Description of the flora and fauna, which occupy the site or are occasionally found thereon, PIA- setting forth with detail those areas where unique plant or animal species may be found on the site. U Description of any features, buildings, or areas which are of historic significance. • Map indicating proposed finished grading shown at contours at the same intervals proposed q, above or as required to clearly indicate the relationship of proposed changes to existing topography and remaining features. • Landscape plan drawn to an appropriate scale including dimensions, distance, location, type, size, and description of all existing vegetation, clearly locating and describing any vegetation A- proposed for removal and all proposed la*ndscape materials which will be added to this site as part of the development. • Proposed drainage plan of the developed site delineating in which direction, volume, and at what rate stormwater will be conveyed from the site and setting forth the areas of the site where stormwater will be allowed to collect and gradually percolate into the soil, or be slowly released to stream or lake. The plan shall also set forth hydraulic capacity of all structures to be constructed or exiting structures to be utilized, including volume or holding ponds and design storms. L3 Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan indicating the type, location, and necessary technical information on control measures to be taken both during and after construction including a statement expressing the calculated anticipated gross soil loss expressed in tons/acres/year both during and after construction. Proposed size, alignment, height, and intended use of any structures to be erected or located on the site. , • Clear delineation of all areas which shall be paved or surfaced including a description of the surfacing material to be used. • Description of the method to be provided for vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed development and public access to the river and/or public river view opportunities both before and after development; a description of the development's impact on existing views of and along the river. L3 Description of all parking facilities to be provided as part of the development of the site including an analysis of parking needs generated by the proposed development. /--/A- El Delineation of the area or areas to be dedicated for public use. L3 Delineation of the location and amounts of excavated soils to be stored on the site during construction. Nlyy U Any other information pertinent to that particular project which in the opinion of the City or applicant is necessary or helpful for the review' of the project. Critical Area Permit Request (modified 121612013) Page 2 of 2 page 106 MEMORANDUM 'TO: Jen Folley FROM: Alan Gray SUBJECT: Critical Area Overlay Permit DATE: June 4, 2015 This memo will discuss the benefits of the modular block wall system constructed in 2011 and may be submitted to the City with your application for the Critical Area Overlay permit. The modular block walls replaced wood walls that were approximately 33 years old. The new walls were placed on the same alignment and grade of the original walls. The ends of the new walls were curved to soften the appearance of the system. The alignment and grade of the original system had the following benefits: ® Allowed a "switchback" driveway alignment to reduce the grade. ® Provided two off-street parking spots in addition to the apron area at the garage. ® Reduced the average grade of the turfed areas of the front yard to retard runoff and increased infiltration. The modular block system selected has the following additional advantages; ® Durable product that does not release chemicals. o Accommodates curved alignments to softer appearance. naae 108 _�" Publication �-�1��[��0�l�/i�N N�N ����0Vli��������n State ofMinneso" K GB � County of Dakota ^ E. KITTY 8lINDBEI{G �being duly sworn, on ooth, says that he/she is the publisher or authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known a and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: (A) The newspaper has complied with all ofthe requirements constituting qualification �aoaqualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. (B) The printed NOTICE OF HEARING which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week. for l successive weeks; it was firstpublishedon 0_O_V_IA_Y__. the 14 dey of JUNE 20 15 , and was thereafter printed and published on every in and induding. the ______ day nf . 2O; and printed below is a copy ufthe lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used inthe composition and publication ofthe notice: Subscribed and sworn tnbefore meon 15'" day of }[TNl5 12015 )Notary Public *Alphabet =aaryTONYA R. =WHITEHEAD Not Publio-Znnesota RATE INFORMATION fN Corrimission Wires Jan 31,20M (1)Lowest classified rate paid by (2) Maximum rate allowed bylaw for the above matter -----. .$25.00per col. inch .$25.00 per col. inch (3) Rate actually charged for the above matter ....................................................... $ per col. inch 1/15 page 110 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS1 NOTICE OF HEARING A PUBLIC HEARING ON CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AT 1104 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of Mendota 'Heights Will meet at 7:00 P.M., or as soon as possible thereafter, on Tuesday, July 7, 20,15,in the'City Hall Council' Chambers; 1101 Victoria Curve, MendotaHeights, Minnesota, ;to consider - a critical area permit for after -the -fact., construction of ,a -,retaining wall. at 1104 Sibley Memorial "Highway.'; ",This requddl: has been assigned Planning Case,, number 20i 5-16. uoue. oucn persons as aesire to oe heard with reference to this request will be heard at this meeting: Lord Smith City' Cleik Print Preview Page 1 of 1 page III Planning Case 2015-16 Public Hearing Notice Mailing List {City of Lilydale noticed separately;: 270230050022 ALLIANCE SANK 270230050021 1104 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWY MARK P &IENNIFER M FOLEY 270230052030 274550001010 1573 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS RD 1054 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWY FREDERICK D TOENNIGES MICHAEL W HEINE 274550001030 274650001020 c 1661 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS RD 1655 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS RD GORDOht D & ELIZABETH HESSELROTH TIM &.ANDREA CARSON 270230050010 1680 LEXINGTON AVE KEITH F OSTROSKY Disclaimer_ Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed_ This is nota legal Map Scale document and should rrot be substituted fora title seerch,appreisal survey, or forzoning v�--hfieahon_ Dakota County 1 inch = 381 feet assumes rro legal responsibArrty for the infonna#ion contained in this dab. 5/1{2015 http://gis.co. dakota.mn.uslDCGISIWebFonnsIPrint.aspx?img=http:Hgis.co.dakota.mn.us/Co... 6/1/2015 page 112 8b. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota :t,q w 75118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com , T mCITY OF MENDIDTA HEIGHTS DATE: July 7, 2015 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Board of Zoning Appeals Decision BACKGROUND The appellant, STEP Academy, is seeking an appeal from an interpretation of the text of the City Code concerning the definition of a trade school. According to the City Code, the Planning Commission is designated as the Board of Zoning Appeals and the City Council has the authority to review and revise any decision by the Board after conducting a public hearing. Staff was initially contacted by the appellant's representatives inquiring about leasing space at 1345 Mendota Heights Road. Based on staffs interpretation of the Code, they were informed that the proposed use was not permitted and, as a result, would require a code amendment to locate within the Industrial District. The appeal decision to be reviewed by the City Council concerns the Code's definition of a "trade school" and whether or not STEP Academy meets that definition and is, therefore, permitted to sublease the property within the Industrial District. The letters provided on behalf of the appellant (Exhibits A and C of the attached staff report) include further background on the proposed use and rationale behind their appeal. The Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing at the June 23 meeting; the appellant and their representatives provided testimony that is summarized in the minutes provided with the Council packet. The Board voted 6-1 to deny the appeal request in this case. However, the Board discussed several motions in favor of recommending that the City Council consider drafting a code amendment to allow charter schools in the Industrial District. While a motion indicating that direction to the Council was ultimately not passed, the Board members did indicate a desire to accomplish additional consideration of the proposed use in this case, but, also acknowledged the constraints given the appeal request before them at the time. BUDGETIMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION The Board of Zoning Appeals denied the appeal request, as described in Planning Case 2015-18. If the City Council desires to accept the decision, pass a motion adopting RESOLUTION 2015-52 ACCEPTING DECISION BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DENYING AN APPEAL FROM A ZONING DETERMINATION. An alternate resolution revising the decision and granting the appeal request is also provided for consideration. This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 113 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2015-52 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DECISION BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DENYING AN APPEAL FROM A ZONING DETERMINATION WHEREAS, STEP Academy has requested an appeal from an interpretation of the text of the City Code concerning the definition of a trade school, as proposed in Planning Case 2015-18; and WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting on June 23, 2015 and voted 6-1 to deny the appeal request. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Board of Zoning Appeal's decision concerning an interpretation of the text of the City Code, as proposed in Planning Case 2015-18, is hereby accepted with the following findings of fact: 1. STEP Academy is not a trade school, college, or university. 2. STEP Academy is not a trade school because it provides a general college preparatory curriculum, rather than the common and ordinary understanding of a trade school, which is a vocational school. 3. STEP Academy is not a college or university because it does not confer post -secondary degrees. 4. The proposed use is not permitted or conditionally permitted in Section 12-1G-1 or 12-1G-2 of the City Code. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this seventh day of July, 2015. ATTEST: Lorri Smith, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor page 114 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2015-52 RESOLUTION REVISING DECISION BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DENYING AN APPEAL FROM A ZONING DETERMINATION WHEREAS, STEP Academy has requested an appeal from an interpretation of the text of the City Code concerning the definition of a trade school, as proposed in Planning Case 2015-18; and WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting on June 23, 2015 and voted 6-1 to deny the appeal request. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Board of Zoning Appeal's decision concerning an interpretation of the text of the City Code, as proposed in Planning Case 2015-18, is hereby revised based on the findings of fact that a charter school meets the definition of a trade school. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this seventh day of July, 2015. ATTEST: Lorri Smith, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 1 page 115 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone a 651.452.8940 fax www.rnendota-heights,corn , T mCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: June 23, 2015 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2015-18 Zoning Appeal — Charter School Use APPLICANT: STEP Academy PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1345 Mendota Heights Road ZONING/GUIDED: I-Industrial/I-Industrial ACTION DEADLINE: September 11, 2015 (extended to 120 days) DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is seeking an appeal from an interpretation of the text of the City Code concerning the definition of a trade school. According to the City Code, the Planning Commission is designated as the Board of Zoning Appeals. BACKGROUND Staff was contacted by representatives for STEP Academy, a charter school serving grades 6-12, inquiring about leasing space at 1345 Mendota Heights Road. Based on staffs interpretation of the Code, they were informed that the proposed use is not permitted and, as a result, would require a code amendment to locate within the Industrial District. The following timeline of events ensued: 1. April 17, 2015 — STEP Academy request for zoning determination (Exhibit A) 2. April 24, 2015 — City response to request for zoning determination (Exhibit B) 3. June 17, 2015 and May 14, 2015 —STEP Academy appeal letters (Exhibit C) According to Title 12 -1L -A of the City Code: Board Of Appeals; Planning Commission Serve As: The planning commission is designated as the board of zoning appeals and shall determine, in harmony with the general purpose of this chapter and the comprehensive plan, by resolution, all appeals from any order, requirement, permit or decision made by the zoning administrator under this chapter, and from any interpretation of the text of this chapter, or any determination by the zoning administrator as to the location of the boundary of a zoning district as shown on the zoning map. In this case, the Board of Zoning Appeals is charged with considering an appeal from an interpretation of the text of the City Code. The City Council may review and revise any decision of the Board, in compliance with Title 12 -IL -D of the City Code. The City Attorney has provided a memo with further information on the procedural requirements for a zoning appeal and supporting analysis for consideration (see Exhibit D). 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 2 page 116 ANALYSIS The appeal for consideration before the Board of Zoning Appeals concerns the Code's definition of a "trade school" and whether or not STEP Academy meets that definition and is, therefore, permitted to sublease the property at 1345 Mendota Heights Road. The letters provided on behalf of the appellant (Exhibits A and C) include further background on the proposed use and rationale behind their appeal. Trade School Definition According to Title 12-1B-2 of the City Code, "trade school" is defined as follows: TRADE SCHOOL: An educational institution, eitherprivate orpublic, which offers classes and training to full and/or part time students including, but not limited to, technical, mechanical, services and computing fields. Based on the existing City Code provisions and past City Council determinations, it remains the City's position that a charter school is not included in the trade school defmition and is, therefore, not a permitted nonmanufacturing use within the Industrial District. A charter school would be considered consistent with the use category "public and parochial schools," which are permitted uses within the residential zoning districts. If a charter school were to be included as part of the definition listed above, other educational institutions, regardless of grade level, may also qualify under this definition. If that were the case, it would seem difficult to come to the conclusion that a primary/elementary educational institution (K-6) could somehow be construed to fit the definition of a trade school simply because the definition does not include specific grade level requirements and they offer classes and/or training in various fields as part of the curriculum. Staff contends that the intent of the existing definition is to further qualify the companion permitted use in the Industrial District, which is "trade schools and colleges or universities..." Land Use As noted, the property at 1345 Mendota Heights Road is located in the Industrial District and is currently occupied by Sanford -Brown College (see attached map). According to Title 12-1G-1 of the City Code, "Trade schools and colleges or universities, without accessory housing" are permitted nonmanufacturing uses within the Industrial District. In addition, "Business or trade school when conducted entirely within a building" are conditional uses within the B-3 General Business District. Due to the location of the property in question, the land use issues raised in this report are related to the Industrial District. However, it should be noted that a determination that a charter school meets the definition of a trade school may also allow the use within other zoning districts in the City. Trade school uses that occupy the Industrial District are post -secondary institutions. The use category also includes "colleges or universities," both of which are post -secondary in nature, and were specifically discussed by the City Council and amended by Ordinance 391 in 2004. One of the purposes for the proposed amendment was to reflect the change from Brown Institute to Brown College, since they had begun to offer four-year degrees. The Industrial District allows a mix of permitted, conditional, and accessory uses, but the vast majority of the existing land uses are office and industrial (fabrication, storage, manufacturing or wholesale). While it is recognized that certain charter schools may have different missions and curriculum than traditional public/private primary and secondary educational institutions, a determination that allows this use to be permitted by right in the Industrial District may allow for proliferation of other educational institutions that were not envisioned as part of the long-term planning for the area. The City has taken great care to support and maintain the industrial and business character of the Industrial District and is undergoing a redevelopment planning process to ensure its long-term success. Careful consideration should be taken when considering allowing additional educational institutions in this area, especially as permitted uses. 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 3 page 117 Previous City Council Determinations Based on review of available meeting minutes and staff correspondence (see Exhibit E), the City Council has been approached on at least two occasions by charter schools interested in operating within the Industrial District. While not specifically discussed, it can be reasonably -assumed that the Council did not consider a charter school to be included in the trade school definition since both discussions centered on consideration of a potential code amendment to allow the use. According to the minutes, the Council raised the following potential land use issues regarding charter schools operating within the Industrial District: • Insufficient off-street parking • Lack of on-site recreational facilities for students • Bus and student traffic • Proliferation of other educational uses in the Industrial District • Land use conflicts with existing/future industrial uses • Maintaining the industrial character of the industrial park While it is recognized that the appeal in this case stands on its own merit, it is important to note how past City Councils have considered charter school uses within the Industrial District and why staff is making the aforementioned determination in this case. Response to Appeal Letter Staff has the following responses to additional issues raised in the letter attached as Exhibit C, dated June 17, 2015, from the attorney representing the appellant in this case: Initial City Position It is implied that staff may have intentionally withheld information regarding the potential for an appeal process when originally contacted by the broker representing the appellant; the inquiry was simply to ask whether a charter school was allowed to operate at the property in question within the Industrial District. Staff does not recall any mention of the existing trade school definition, and therefore there was no need to further discuss a potential appeal on the grounds being raised in this case. As with other brokers or interested parties, they were encouraged to pursue a code amendment process to consider the use in compliance with the City's timelines for such a request. To the extent that process does not work within their timelines is unfortunate, but that is not the City's issue. The original appeal request letter, dated May 14, 2015, is included as part of the application package concerning this request. This is normal practice for any correspondence related to a pending application provided to staff. Proposed Trade School Definition Code Amendment As discussed at the May 26 Planning Commission meeting, and communicated to the appellant and their representatives during a meeting held earlier that day, the appeal before the Board of Zoning Appeals is contesting the existing Code language and is therefore not impacted by the proposed code amendment. The proposed amendment regarding the trade school definition is meant to further clarify the City's position that trade schools are post -secondary institutions, in accordance with past policy discussions on the matter. Furthermore, it is an acceptable process for any city to consider amendments to land use ordinances in order to seek clarification to ensure consistent and equitable administration of the regulations. Therefore, it is staffs position the proposed code amendment concerning the trade school definition is irrelevant in this case. Staffs message and interpretation of the Code to all parties involved in this case has been consistent from the initial contact. On May 20, 2015, as a courtesy, the appellant and their attorney were made aware of the code amendment application being considered by the Planning Commission at their upcoming meeting. Staffs only face-to- face meeting was held May 26, the day of the Planning Commission meeting. The City followed the proper noticing procedures in compliance with policies for such a request and the appellant and their representatives were able to provide testimony at the public hearing. 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 4 page 118 City Code Amendment Process The City has informed the appellant and their representatives, as well as the several other charter school uses which have previously been interested in locating within the Industrial District, the appropriate procedure would require a code amendment to specifically allow the use. If an applicant was to make such a request, staff would recommend the use be considered as a conditional or interim use, not as a permitted use. A conditional or interim use allows for a public hearing and reasonable conditions to be placed on the use, based on potential negative impacts to surrounding properties and the public. Staff continues to recommend this process as the most equitable and transparent option for consideration of a charter school use within the Industrial District. ALTERNATIVES Following a hearing, the Board of Zoning Appeals may consider the following actions: 1. Deny the appeal from a zoning determination, based on the attached findings of fact. 2. Grant the appeal from a zoning determination, based on the findings of fact that a charter school meets the definition of a trade school. '71 3. Table the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the appeal from a zoning determination in this case to consider a charter school under the definition of a trade school as a permitted use in the Industrial District, based on the attached fmdings of fact (Alternative 91). If the Board of Zoning Appeals desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion adopting RESOLUTION 2015-44 DENYING AN APPEAL FROM A ZONING DETERMINATION. An alternate resolution granting the appeal request is also provided for consideration. This matter requires a simple majority vote. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Resolution 2015-44 2. Aerial site map 3. Planning application 4. Exhibit A — STEP Academy request for zoning determination letter (dated April 17, 2015) 5. Exhibit B — City response to zoning determination letter (dated April 24, 2015) 6. Exhibit C — STEP Academy appeal letters (dated June 17, 2015 and May 14, 2015) 7. Exhibit D —City Attorney memo (dated June 8, 2015) 8. Exhibit E— Staff memo/City Council minutes (March 16, 2000, March 21, 2000, and May 1, 2001) 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 5 page 119 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DENIAL Appeal from Zoning Determination STEP Academy The following findings of fact are made in denial of the appeal: The intent of the existing trade school definition is to further qualify the permitted uses within the Industrial District, which are "trade schools, colleges or universities," as being post -secondary institutions. 2. The applicable use category includes "colleges or universities," both of which are post -secondary in nature. 3. Trade school uses that occupy the Industrial District are post -secondary institutions. 4. The City Council has determined that past requests to operate charter schools within the Industrial District would require a code amendment. 5. A code amendment process to properly consider the use would allow for a public hearing and consideration of potential land use conflicts that may have negative impacts on surrounding properties and the public. 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet Page Planning Case 2015-18 4. �- City of 1345 Mendota Heights Road 0 (b 110 M Mendota Date- 6/16/2015 %� Heights SCALE IN FEET 131 � Wo HEIGHTS RD ---------------------------- OP NORTHLAND 77 ` --------------''---'-r--------'`-JDR --�' '------'--�---'�-- ' " ) 13 SZ-] / 133O / GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for atrue title oeuvch, property upproiaa|, plat, survey, orfor zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors oromissions herein. |fdiscrepancies are found, please contact the City ofMendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at051454~OOO2for utility locations, 48 hours prior hmany excavation. r 77 �:€ f ® s7MENDOTA HEIGHTS 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 9 page 121 APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST istinal Use''' 4 e— l U . , ro.-a . Imposed :1,_ Property Address/Street Location: f .;: c� 1 1 �� G.� 1 c:" ...`_5 Applicant Name: 57 Phone: 4 5i Applicant E-MaiE Address: �'i sGL r, I �(ehf` pplicant Mailing Address: -41ob ill Jet* S'1 e-c-w—WI~ ty r Name: c B 122 0A rPhone: � it. n, -.t;,-•_ :;. ,^-, unsmr 1lRnilinnAAAmimc• ) 'R I'] -LOA r-1 rl - Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or J\ UC , I r! V 4t f must be provided) Type of Request: C3, Rezoning ❑ Variance ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Conditional Use Permit for PUD ❑ Wetlands Permit ❑ Preliminary/Final Plat Approval ❑ Subdivision Approval ❑ Critical Area Permit 0 Comprehensive Pian Amendment ❑ Code Amendment Q Lot Split �` Othereq k( m ✓ 4h LQP 2 '��I I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the a�diti • a aterial are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours. /z4j;71 - SignaturO of Applicant X Date Signature of Owner Date Signature of Owner (if more than one) Date Planning Application (modified 1/28/2014) Page 1 of 1 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 10 page 122 1101 V1Ct0Na (',UrYP 1 Mendota MeighK III 55118 X51.1522 SBO Rhone I GSL452,8g40 fax ` i�r+.r�v.m�r�d�:a•pstighis_C�rra M ra e MENOOTA HEIGHTS APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Office Use Only: Case #: Application Date: Applicable Ordinance #: Existing Zoning: Existing Use: Property Address/Street 'Location: Applicant Name: Applicant E -Mail Address: Fee Paid: Staff Initials: - Section: _Proposed Zoning:_ Proposed Use: Phone: Applicant Mailing Address: Property Owner Name: Daniel Schadegg Phone: 651-292-9933 Property Owner Mailing Address. 225 Bridgepoint Dr South St Paul, MN 55075 Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) Type of Request: ❑ Rezoning ❑ variance ❑ Subdivision Approval ❑ Code Amendment ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Conditional Use Permit for PUD ❑ Wetlands Permit ❑ Critical Area Permit ❑ Lot Split ❑ Preliminary/Final Plat Approval ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑ Other I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours. Signature of Applicant Date 0 Signature bf Owner U Date Signature of Owner (if more than one) Date Planning Appication (modified 1/28/2014) Page 1 of 1 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 11 page 123 Exhibit A AamCINDY L. LAYORATO ATTORNEY AT LAW April 17, 2015 Mr. Nolan Wall Mendota Heights City Planning Dear Mr. Wall: VIA EMAIL ONLY My name is Cindy Lavorato, and I am an attorney representing STEP Academy. I an, writing to formally request an opinion from you regarding whether STEP may lease space at 1345 Mendota Heights Rd, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 to operate a charter school. I understand that the property in question is in an area zoned "industrial". As I read the Mendota Heights City Code, a trade school is a permitted use in an industrially zoned area. Trade school is defined broadly as "An educational institution, either private or public, which offers classes and training to full and/or part time students including, but not limited to, technical, mechanical, services and computing fields." I further understand that you previously gave an informal opinion that a charter school could not qualify as a "trade school" under this definition; however, I also understand that you never provided a formal, written opinion concerning your conclusion or your rationale. I am writing to formally request that you issue an opinion regarding whether STEP Academy Charter School may lease the space referenced above. STEP is a public educational institution, as required by the definition. It is also offers classes to full time students, a second requirement of the definition. What you may not have known prior to this time is that the name "STEP" is an acronym for "Science, Technology, Engineering and Math"; thus the school is thematically designed to provide training in the very fields contemplated by the city's zoning ordinance_ Finally, the current tenant is very much in favor of allowing STEP to sub -lease some of its space; the co -location would support the mission of STEP to help prepare its students for technology-based post -secondary education. When we spoke by phone last week, you indicated that one factor that influenced your initial interpretation was that historically only a post -secondary institution has occupied the premises in that area, and that it was your understanding that the code had been drafted so as to 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 12 page 124 permit use by a post- secondary school. However, if the City Council had wished to limit tenants to post -secondary institutions, the code could certainly have been drafted in that way. Moreover, a fair reading of the language in the provision above indicates that it is to be read in an expansive fashion because permissible uses include educational institutions that that offer classes and training to students "including, but not limited to" those involved in "technical, mechanical, services and computing fields". I hope that you will re -consider your earlier, informal conclusion in light of this new in information. Time is of the essence for my client so if you could advise me in writing of your decision at your earliest convenience I would greatly appreciate it. My clients would also be very happy to meet with you at your convenience to answer any remaining questions or concerns you may have. Thank you very much. Sincerely, LAVORATO LAW OFFICES LLC By: s/s Cindy Lavorato 25 Paisley Lane Golden Valley, MN 55422 (612) 868-9414 Cindy@edlaw.co 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 13 page 125 Exhibit B 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, NEN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1651.482,8940 fax __ - - - www.mendota-heights.corn 1�+ CITY OF MENDOTA �r April 24, 2015 Ms. Cindy Lavorato Via Email: Cindy@edlaw.co RE: Zoning Determination — STEP Academy Charter School Dear Ms. Lavorato: I am in receipt of your letter dated April 17, 2015, regarding the STEP Academy Charter School. In the letter, you request an opinion as to whether or not STEP Academy Charter School can lease existing space at 1345 Mendota Heights Road. The property is located within the Industrial Zoning District. The Mendota Heights City Code allows "Trade schools and colleges or universities, without accessory housing [12 -IG -J]" as a permitted nonmanufacturing use. I understand your position is that, based on the City Code's definition of trade school as "an educational institution, either private or public, which offers classes and training to full and/or part time students including, but not limited to, technical, mechanical, services and computing fields [12-1B-2], " a charter school should be permitted. Based on the existing City Code provisions, it is the City's position that a charter school is not included in the "trade school" definition and is, therefore, not a permitted nonmanufacturing use in the Industrial District. Trade school uses that occupy the Industrial District are post -secondary institutions, and not the secondary classification under which the definition of a charter school would fall. The use category also includes "colleges or universities," both of which are post -secondary in nature, and were specifically discussed by the City Council and added by Ordinance 391 in 2004. The City has taken great care to support and maintain the industrial character of the Industrial District; had the City intended to allow charter schools, the Code would have been amended to allow for secondary schools at that time. A charter school would be considered consistent with the use category "public and parochial schools," which are permitted within the residential zoning districts in the City. According to Title 12-1L-3 of the City Code, if you or your client disagrees with this interpretation, this decision can be appealed to the Planning Commission, which serves as the Board of Appeals. At any time within ninety (90) days of the receipt of this lcttcr, a written notice must be submitted stating the action appealed from and stating the specific grounds upon which the appeal is made. The City Council may review and revise any decision by the Board of Appeals. The City of Mendota Heights is proud to support several existing public and private school facilities. We encourage your client to pursue a property that already allows for the use in compliance with the City Code. Sincerely, IA-W--- Nolan Wall, AICP ec/ec- Thomas R. Lehmann., City Attorney Planner (via email: Tlehmann@eckberglammers.com) Mark McNeill, City Administrator 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 14 page 126 Exhibit C AN-0001DOF C1DY L. .,.AVO ATO 25 Paisley Lane ATTORNEY AT LAW Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 (612)868-9414 Cindy@edlaw.co June 17, 2015 VJA EMAIL TO CITYPLAAWER ONLY Members of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission City of Mendota Heights 11.01 Victoria. Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Planning Commission Members: My name is Cindy Lavorato, and 1 am an attorney representing STEP Academy Charter School. I am writing to formally appeal the attached April 24, 2015 determination regarding Step Academy's efforts to sub- lease property located at 1 345 Mendota Heights Road, Mendota Minnesota from Sanford -Brown College (SBC). I would like to provide some background about STEP and SBC. 1 would also like to highlight some procedural issues involving the City council and administration that should be before you as you consider this appeal. 1 will then provide STEP's legal arguments in support of this appeal. BACKGROUND The Stakeholders STEP Academy is a public charter school serving students in grades 6-12. STEP's vision statement provides as follows: MN STEP Academy is a 6-12 Chanter School in Inver Grove Heights, MN. It is our vision to promote college -readiness by ensuring that all students are motivated to academic excellence, can qualify to obtain college credit while in high school, are fully prepared to 1 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 15 page 127 enter college and graduate, with the critical knowledge and skills required for employment in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) careers. As a public school open to all students, it also reaches out to students who arc underserved by traditional schools and are underrepresented within STEM fields.' STEP's enrollment has been steadily increasing over the past two years, and the school has outgrown its current setting. Approximately two months ago, a real estate agent for STEP located space for the school at 1345 Mendota Heights Road, Mendota Minnesota currently occupied by Sanford -Brown College (SBC). The space is 55,263 square feet within a 1 -story free standing building with associated on-site parking. SBS has been actively marketing excess space for sublease. SBC offers a variety of degree granting programs and associate degrees at this space. One of the attractions of the SBC location for both STEP and SBC is the fact that both educational institutions offer classes and training in technology -related fields. For example, SBC offers a bachelors in Technology Information (TI), and a certificate in both TI and broadcasting. SBC representatives indicate that they have other schools within their campus network that are currently subleasing; to charter schools. That arrangement has had a very positive result for the students: many that graduate fiom the charter school enroll in programs at SBC and obtain their degree. Both parties were very enthusiastic about the prospect of the sublease and the synergistic impact it would have on educational opportunities for STEP's students. STEP's current lease ends on July 31, 2015 and so time was of the essence in attempting to secure an alternative site. The City's Initial Position The sublease was stalled when Mr. Nolan Wall verbally advised STEP`s broker that a charter school could not occupy the space unless the zoning code was amended because STEP is not a ' Available at: http://stepacademymn.com/index.pbp/component/content)?vievt--featured. 2 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 16 page 128 "trade school" within the meaning of the ordinance. Mr. Wall failed to advise STEP's broker that his informal opinion could be challenged and if necessary, appealed to the Planning Commission. As a consequence, the parties concluded that the sublease could not be negotiated because it would be impossible to amend the ordinance in time for an August 1, 2015 move -in date. The Industrial Zone in Question The industrial park zone contains a variety of widely different uses, including residential uses. There appears to be a division between City administrators along with the Mayor, and a majority of the City Council concerning whether and to what extent apparently "non -conforming" uses should be considered within the industrial park zone. In January of 2015, Mr. Wall, on behalf of the City, proposed an ordinance that would have placed a one year moratorium on applications for conditional use permits within the industrial zone. The moratorium proposal was defeated by a three to two vote, with the Mayor and one other council member voting in the minority for the moratorium. When I became involved in this matter, I asked Mr. 'Wall to put his informal decision in writing. I reviewed the applicable ordinances which suggested to me that Mr. Walls' interpretation—that "trade school" did not include vocationally based schools unless they were post -secondary was erroneous. Again, Mr. Wall stated that the only way to contest his interpretation would be to propose an amendment to the ordinance. Instead, I requested that Mr. Wall reduce decision to writing so that it could be appealed if necessary. His decision is attached. I wrote to you as the appellate body on May 14, 2015 to officially appeal that decision, apparently that appeal letter was not provided to you at that time_ In the meantime, Mr. Wall drafted a proposed ordinance that would codify his interpretation of the zoning ordinance by "writing out" K-12 vocational schools from the definition of "trade 3 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 17 page 129 school". The proposed amendment was published on May 10, 2015, just four days before STEP filed its appeal of Mr. Wall's determination. Neither STEP Academy nor Sanford Brown College --clearly both of whom are stakeholders in this matter—were consulted or even advised that the City was planning to propose this amendment. As you are aware, as a body you voted to table the proposed ordinance amendment because the rationale for the amendment was not clearly presented at your meeting on May 26, 2015. During that meeting, Mr. Wall indicated that more than one charter school had approached the City informally to ask whether they could operate in the area zoned as industrial and there was a concern that the ordinance should be amended to reflect the City's "intent". No further rationale was provided for the change being proposed. In the meantime, STEP and Sanford Brown College have renewed their negotiations regarding a sub -lease and have reached a tentative agreement. On behalf of STEP Academy, and with the support of representatives of Sanford Brown College, we write to both oppose the City's proposed ordinance amendment and to request that you reverse Mr. Wall's determination that STEP Academy may not sub -lease property from Sanford Brown College. LEGAL ARGUMENT I. THE RATIONALE FOR DENYING THE PROPOSED USE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE ORDINANCE. Courts apply the rules of statutory construction to municipal ordinances and resolutions. Eagan Econ. Dev. Auth. v. U -Haul Co. of?Mlinn., 787 N.W.2d 523, 535 (Minn. 2010). The object of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislative body. Minn - Stat. § 645,16 (2012). The "touchstone" for statutory interpretation is the plain meaning of the language itself. ILHC of Eagan, .SLC v_ Cnty. of Dakota, 693 N.W.2d 412, 419 (Minn. 2005). 4 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 18 page 130 Words and phrases are construed according to their common and approved usage. Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2014). The principles of construction for interpreting and applying a zoning ordinance are as follows: first, courts generally strive to construe a term according to its plain and ordinary meaning. Second, zoning ordinances should be construed strictly against the City and in favor of the property owner. Third, a zoning ordinance must always be considered in light of its underlying policy. SLS P'ship v. City of Apple Valley, 511 N. W.2d 738, 741 (Minn. 1994) (alteration in original) (quoting Frank's Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of Roseville, 295 N.W.2d 604, 608- 09 (Minn. 1980)). When interpreting an ordinance, courts look first to whether the language, on its face, is clear or ambiguous. Motokazie! Inc. v. Rice Cnty., 824 N.W.2d 341, 344 (Minn. App. 2012). if the language of the ordinance is clear and unambiguous, statutory construction is "neither necessary nor permitted" and the court must apply the ordinance's plain meaning. Am. Tower, L_P_ v. City of Grant, 636 N.W.2d 309, 312 (Minn. 2001). In matters of statutory construction, a statute is only ambiguous when the language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation. Motokazie! .Erre,, 824 N.W.2d at 344. Although the City planner would like to argue that there is an ambiguity in the ordinance in question, STEP Academy takes issue with that position. There is no ambiguity in the zoning ordinance at issue.; it plainly permits educational institutions of any grade level to operate within the Industrial Zone. The only limitation on use pertains to the type of training being offered, not the grade level at which it is offered. Specifically, the ordinance defines "trade school" as " [1] an educational institution, [2] either private or public, [3] which offers classes and training [4] to full and/or part time students, [5] including, but not limited to, technical, mechanical, services and computing fields". [12-113-2]. 5 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 19 page 131 Moreover, use of the term "school" further suggests that the grade level of the educational institution is not relevant to whether the use is permitted. If the City had wished to limit the grade levels of the educational institution, the City could have defined trade school as a "profit or not for profit post -secondary institution". Alternatively the City could have expressly stated that "grammar schools", or schools in grades K-12 were prohibited. The City included neither in its definition. Since the language of this ordinance is clear and unambiguous, statutory construction is "neither necessary nor permitted" and a reviewing court will apply the ordinance's plain meaning. Am. Tower, L.P. v City of Grant, 636 N.W.2d 309, 312 (Minn. 2001). STEP requests that the Planning Commissioner also interpret the zoning ordinance in a manner that is consistent with its plain meaning. II. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ORDINANCE EXPRESSLY LIMITING USES IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE TO POST SECONDARY SCHOOLS. IF Rlestriction[s] on land use must be clearly expressed ". Mendota Golf, LLP, vs. City of Mendota Heights, 708 N.W.2d 162, 172, (2006) (emphasis added). "Generally, courts will narrowly construe any restrictions that a zoning ordinance imposes upon a property owner" Mendota Goff, LLP, vs. City of Mendota Heights, supra citing Frank's Nursery gales, Inc. v. City of Roseville, 295 N.W.2d 604, 608-09 (Minn. 1980) ("we must give weight to the interpretation that, while still within the confines of the term, is least restrictive upon the rights of the property owner to use his land as he wishes"). There is nothing in the City Ordinances that clearly and expressly prohibits a K-12 school serving students studying technology from operating in the Industrial Zone_ Ironically, the City's efforts to amend the ordinance only serve to substantiate the obvious conclusion that the prohibition now being proposed is neither clear nor express. X 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 20 page 132 As indicated above, the Code defines a "trade school" as " [1] an educational institution, [2] either private or public, [3] which offers classes and training [4] to full and/or part time students, [5] including, but not limited to, technical, mechanical, services and computing fields". [12-113-2]. Furthermore, the zoning ordinance itself is drafted in an expansive fashion, rather than a restrictive fashion, to include schools that offer classes and training in subject areas "...including, but not limited to, technical, mechanical, services and computing fields". [12-113-2]. This too demonstrates that the original intent of the ordinance was to include, rather than exclude, the types of schools that could operate in the Industrial Zone. Most importantly, STEP Academy meets all five of the plainly stated ordinance requirements. First, STEP Academy is an educational institution, meeting the first requirement of the ordinance. Second, STEP is a public charter school, meeting the second requirement of the ordinance.'- Third, STEP offers classes and training, (meeting the third requirement of the ordinance) to full time students-- thus meeting the fourth requirement of the ordinance. And finally, and perhaps most importantly, STEP is an acronym for "Science, Technology, Engineering and Math"; the school is thematically designed to provide training in the very fields contemplated by the City's zoning ordinance. In his initial zoning determination, the City Planner attempted to graft a limiting definition onto the plain meaning of this ordinance by suggesting that. a. charter school is "consistent" with the use category "public and parochial schools, which are permitted with the residential zoning districts in the City". However, the fact that a charter school might meet the requirements of permitted uses in residential. zones does not mean that such a use is expressly disallowed in the Industrial ,Zone. If the City had wished to disallow vocational K-12 schools in the Industrial Zone, the City should z Miun. Stat. § 124D.14 subd. 7 defines charter schools as follows: "A charter school is a public school and is part of the state's system of public education....". 7 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 21 page 133 have expressly prohibited such uses. A court would very likely conclude that the City may not now retroactively attempt to re -define the ordinance in a fashion that prevents a landowner from using the property in a manner that is consistent with the plain meaning of the ordinance. III, IT IS ARBITRARY TO TREAT A TECHNOLOGY BASED CHARTER SCHOOL DIFFERENTLY FROM A FOR PROFIT SCHOOL THAT OFFERS THE SAME TYPE OF TRAINING TO ITS COLLEGE AGE STUDENTS. "... [B]y statute, zoning regulations must be uniform for each class or kind of buildings, structures, or land and for each class or kind of use throughout [a zoning] district. Minn. Stat. 462.357, subd- 1 (2004)." Mendota Heights, supra. When a zoning classification treats similarly situated individuals differently, there must be rational reason for the unequal treatment that bears a relation to the purposes of the ordinance (protection of the health, safety and welfare of the public). If no such reasonable or rational justification can be found, a court may decide that the City has been arbitrary. See e.g. State v. Northwestern Preparatory School, 37 N.W.2d 370 (Minn. 1949). Absolutely no rationale related to the health and safety of its citizens has been given for treating a charter school serving K-12 students studying technology differently from a private post- secondary school serving students who have recently left high school. The unreasonableness of such an interpretation is heightened when one realizes that, under Minnesota's Post Second Enrollment Options Act' a high school student at STEP Academy could enroll in and take courses at Sanford Brown College while still enrolled at STEP. In other words, the uses in the area are the same; the only difference is the age of the individuals engaged in the use. The only "rationale" given for the City's current interpretation is that " [t]he City has taken great care to support and maintain the industrial character of the Industrial District". However, no 3 Minn. Stat- §124D.09. 0 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 22 page 134 explanation is given regarding how that "industrial character" would be impacted if a charter school student could study technology in the Industrial zone- Furthermore, in point of fact the City has not taken great care to support and maintain the industrial character of the Industrial District, as the discussion at the City Council meeting in January of 2015 clearly indicates.4 The Mayor acknowledged that the City has not planned for or even studied how the current industrial zone should be utilized for several years. Moreover, at the January 2015 meeting Mr. Wall admitted that the industrial area had been a "mixed use" zone-- including residential uses—for quite some time. Finally, citing a need to maintain a vague and undefined "industrial character" beaus no relationship to protecting the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the public. IV. THE CITY'S ATTEMPT TO REDEFINE "TRADE SCHOOL" IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN ATTEMPT TO ZONE STEP ACADEMY OUT OF THE AREA. At the Planning Commission meeting on May 26, 2015, one of the members asked the "why now?" question: why is the City proposing to amend an ordinance that was enacted almost twelve years ago? The answer to that question is perhaps the most telling aspect of this entire matter. The City's attempt to "clarify" the current definition of "trade school" is an admission of the fact that the ordinance as it currently exists clearly does not preclude STEP Academy from sub- leasing the property. This attempt to circumvent an applicant's efforts to challenge a zoning determination is an arbitrary and capricious action that Minnesota courts have disallowed. For example, in Interstate Power Company, Inc. v. Nobles County, 617 N.W.2d 566 (Minn. 2000) the Supreme Court considered an analogous situation in which Nobles County attempted to amend is zoning ordinance to preclude IPC's conditional use application before it was remanded by the court for 'Available at: htlp:l/townsquaretv.-anicus.ecini/MediaPlaN-er.php?view_id-2&clip id=6646. 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 23 page 135 reconsideration. The Court held that application of the zoning ordinance to respondent's project would have been arbitrary and capricious because appellant adopted the amendment expressly to circumvent the scope of the appellate court's remand. Id at 574. The comparisons to the present case cannot be disputed. According to the City's own documents, this ordinance has been in effect for over eleven years. In that time, apparently no effort was made to amend the ordinance to limit it to post -secondary institutions. It is only now—when the city's interpretation of the ordinance is being challenged that the City perceives a need to "clarify" the ordinance. In reality, this is not a clarification, it is an effort to circumvent this school's legitimate efforts to occupy a space that has been vacant for some time. Finally, there is a subtext to the City's actions that must be addressed. During the meeting before this Commission on May 26, 2015, the City admitted that STEP was not the first charter school to ask whether it could lease space in the area zoned as industrial. Why would the City find it necessary to go so far as to amend an ordinance to zone out a K-12 school when it is not the first time that a school has made this request? Could it be because the school serves primarily Somalian students? It is a disturbing question, but one that must be raised. CKIJ0*W1�nGWl In conclusion, STEP respectfully submits that the interpretation being urged is not consistent with the plain meaning of the ordinance. Further, there is no express limitation supporting this interpretation. Finally, the interpretation is arbitrary and bears no relationship whatsoever to protecting the health safety and welfare of the public. The School therefore requests that the April 24, 2015 decision of the City Planner be reversed. 10 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 24 page 136 Sincerely, LAVORATO LAW OFFICES L.L.C. By: Cindy L. Lavorato 11 CINDY L. LAVORATO %W A_ z©RNE i AAg LA!'; May 14, 2015 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 25 page 137 „rK 25 Paisley Lane Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 (612)868-9414 Cindy@edlaw.co Members of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission VL4 EMAIL ONLY City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Re: Appeal of attached Determination Letter Dear Commission Members: My name is Cindy Lavorato, and I am an attorney representing STEP Academy. I am writing to formally appeal the attached April 24, 2015 determination regarding Step Academy's efforts to sub- lease property located at 1345 Mendota Heights Road, Mendota Minnesota. I will give some background about STEP and the sub -lessor before I provide our legal arguments in support of this appeal. BACKGROUND STEP Academy is a public charter school serving students in grades 6-12. STEP's vision statement provides as follows: MN STEP Academy is a 6-12 Charter School in Inver Grove Heights, MN. It is our vision to promote college -readiness by ensuring that all students are motivated to academic excellence, can qualify to obtain college credit while in high school, are fully prepared to enter college and graduate, with the critical knowledge and skills required for employment in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) careers. As a public school open to all students, it also reaches out to students who are underserved by traditional schools and are underrepresented within STEM fields.' 1 Available at: htlp://stepacademymn.com/index.php/componentrcontent/?view=featured. 1 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 26 page 138 STEP's enrollment has been steadily increasing over the past two years, and the school has outgrown its current setting. Approximately two months ago, a real estate agent for STEP located space for the school at 1345 Mendota Heights Road, Mendota Minnesota currently occupied by Sanford -Brown College (SBC). The space is 55,263 square feet within a 1 -story free standing building with associated on-site parking. SBS has been actively marketing excess space for sublease. SBC offers a variety of degree granting programs and associate degrees at this space. One of the attractions of the SBC location for both STEP and SBC is the fact that both educational institutions offer classes and training in technology -related fields. For example, SBC offers a bachelor's in Technology Information (TI), and an associate's degree in both TI and radio broadcasting. SBC also offers an associate's degree in medical assistant and pharmacy technician- again, both areas that are consistent with STEP's emphasis on science as an area of study. SBC representatives indicate that they have other schools within their campus network that are currently subleasing to charter schools. That arrangement has had a very positive result for the students: many that graduate from the charter school enroll in programs at SBC and obtain a degree. Both parties were very enthusiastic about the prospect of the sublease and the synergistic impact it would have on educational opportunities for STEP's students. However, the sublease was stalled when Mr. Nolan Wall advised STEP's broker that a charter school could not occupy the space unless the zoning code was amended. I reviewed the applicable ordinances and requested that Mr. Wall reduce his decision to writing. See attached letter dated April 17, 2015. Mr. Wall's response and determination is 2 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 27 page 139 attached. I am writing to formally appeal that determination, and Mr. Wall's interpretation of the City Code, pursuant to 12 -1L -3:A of the Mendota Heights City Code. LEGAL ARGUMENT I. THE RATIONALE FOR DENYING THE PROPOSED USE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE ORDINANCE. Courts apply the rules of statutory construction to municipal ordinances and resolutions. Eagan Econ. Dev. Auth. v. U -Haul Co. of Minn., 787 N.W.2d 523, 535 (Minn. 2010). The object of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislative body. Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2012). The "touchstone" for statutory interpretation is the plain meaning of the language itself. ILHC of Eagan, LLC v. Cnty. of Dakota, 693 N.W.2d 412, 419 (Minn. 2005). Words and phrases are construed according to their common and approved usage. Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2014). The principles of construction for interpreting and applying a zoning ordinance are as follows: first, courts generally strive to construe a term according to its plain and ordinary meaning. Second, zoning ordinances should be construed strictly against the city and in favor of the property owner. Third, a zoning ordinance must always be considered in light of its underlying policy. SLS P ship v. Cary of Apple Valley, 511 N.W.2d 738, 741 (Minn. 1994) (alteration in original) (quoting Frank's Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of Roseville, 295 N.W.2d 604, 608- 09 (Minn. 1980)). When interpreting an ordinance, courts look first to whether the language, on its face, is clear or ambiguous. Motokazie! Inc. v. Rice Cnty., 824 N.W.2d 341, 344 (Minn. App. 2012). If the language of the ordinance is clear and unambiguous, statutory construction is "neither necessary nor permitted" and the court must apply the ordinance's plain meaning. Am. Tower, 3 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 28 page 140 L.P. v. City of Grant, 636 N.W.2d 309, 312 (Minn. 2001). In matters of statutory construction, a statute is only ambiguous when the language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation. Motokiazie! Inc., 824 N.W.2d at 344. There is no ambiguity in the zoning ordinance at issue.; it plainly permits educational institutions of any grade level to operate within the Industrial Zone. The only limitation on use pertains to the type of training being offered, not the grade level at which it is offered. Specifically, the ordinance defines "trade school" as " [1] an educational institution, [2] either private or public, [3] which offers classes and training [4] to full and/or part time students, [5] including, but not limited to, technical, mechanical, services and computing fields". [12-1B-2]. Moreover, use of the term "school" further suggests that the grade level of the educational institution is not relevant to whether the use is permitted. If the City had wished to limit the grade levels of the educational institution, the City could have defined trade school as a "profit or not for profit post -secondary institution". Alternatively the City could have expressly stated that "grammar schools", or schools in grades K-12were prohibited. The City included neither in its definition. Since the language of this ordinance is clear and unambiguous, statutory construction is "neither necessary nor permitted" and a reviewing court will apply the ordinance's plain meaning. Am. Tower, L.P. v. City of Grant, 636 N.W.2d 309, 312 (Minn. 2001). STEP requests that the Planning Commission also interpret the zoning ordinance in a manner that is consistent with its plain meaning. H. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ORDINANCE EXPRESSLY LIMITING USES IN THE IND USTRIAL ZONE TO POST SECONDARY SCHOOLS. "... [R]estriction[s] on land use must be clearly expressed" Mendota Golf, LLP, vs. City of Mendota Heights, 708 N.W.2d 162, 172, (2006) (emphasis added). "Generally, courts will 4 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 29 page 141 narrowly construe any restrictions that a zoning ordinance imposes upon a property owner". Mendota Golf, LLP, vs. City of Mendota Heights, supra, citing Franks Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of Roseville, 295 N.W.2d 604, 608-09 (Minn. 1980) ("we must give weight to the interpretation that, while still within the confines of the term, is least restrictive upon the rights of the property owner to use his land as he wishes"). There is nothing in the City Ordinances that expressly prohibits a school serving students studying technology from operating in the Industrial Zone. As indicated above, the Code defines a "trade school" as "[1] an educational institution, [2] either private or public, [3] which offers classes and training [4] to full and/or part time students, [5] including, but not limited to, technical, mechanical, services and computing fields". [12-lB-2]. Furthermore, the zoning ordinance itself is drafted in an expansive fashion, rather than a restrictive fashion, to include schools that offer classes and training in subject areas "...including, but not limited to, technical, mechanical, services and computing fields". [12-1B- 2]. This too demonstrates that the original intent of the ordinance was to include, rather than exclude, the types of schools that could operate in the Industrial Zone. Most importantly, STEP Academy meets all five of the plainly stated ordinance requirements. First, STEP Academy is an educational institution, meeting the first requirement of the ordinance. Second, STEP is public charter school, meeting the second requirement of the ordinance.2 Third, STEP offers classes and training, (meeting the third requirement of the ordinance) to full time students,-- thus meeting the fourth requirement of the ordinance. And finally, and perhaps most importantly, STEP is an acronym for "Science, Technology, z Minn. Stat. § 124D.10 subd. 7 defines charter schools as follows: "A charter school is a public school and is part of the state's system of public education....". 5 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 30 page 142 Engineering and Math"; the school is thematically designed to provide training in the very fields contemplated by the city's zoning ordinance. The City Planner has attempted to graft a limiting definition onto the plain meaning of this ordinance by suggesting that a charter school is "consistent" with the use category "public and parochial schools, which are permitted with the residential zoning districts in the City". However, the fact that a charter school might meet the requirements of permitted uses in residential zones does not mean that such a use is expressly disallowed in the Industrial Zone. If the City had wished to disallow public high schools in the Industrial Zone, the City should have expressly prohibited such uses. A court would very likely conclude that the City may not now retroactively attempt to re -define the ordinance in a fashion that prevents a landowner from using the property in a manner that is consistent with the plain meaning of the ordinance. III. IT IS ARBITRARY TO TREAT A TECHNOLOGY BASED CHARTER SCHOOL DIFFERENTLY FROM A FOR PROFIT SCHOOL THAT OFFERS THE SAME TYPE OF TRAINING TO ITS COLLEGE AGE STUDENTS. "... [B]y statute, zoning regulations must be uniform for each class or kind of buildings, structures, or land and for each class or kind of use throughout [a zoning] district. Minn. Stat. 462.357, subd. 1 (2004)." Mendota Heights, supra. When a zoning classification treats similarly situated individuals differently, there must be rational reason for the unequal treatment that bears a relation to the purposes of the ordinance (protection of the health, safety and welfare of the public). Tf no such reasonable or rational justification can be found, a court may decide that the city has been arbitrary. See e.g. State v. Northwestern Preparatory School, 37 N.W.2d 370 (Minn. 1949). Absolutely no rationale related to the health and safety of the City's citizens has been given for treating a charter school serving school students studying technology differently from a private post -secondary school serving students who have recently leis high school. In fact, there 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 31 page 143 is no reference to or finding that STEP's use of the property in question is inconsistent with or contradicts any of the provisions in 12-1A-2. Moreover, disallowing STEP's use is not consistent with one of the primary tenants of the City's zoning ordinance, which is "[p]roviding for the compatibility of different land uses and the most appropriate use of land throughout the city." 12 -1A -2.G. The students at STEP and Sanford -Brown College are engaging in compatible and in fact identical uses. The unreasonableness of the current interpretation is underscored by the fact that, under Minnesota's Post Second Enrollment Options Acta a high school student at STEP Academy could enroll in and take courses at Sanford Brown College while still enrolled at STEP. In other words, the uses in the area, and perhaps even the students in some instances, would be the same; the only difference is the age of the individuals engaged in the use. The singular "rationale" given for the City's current interpretation is that "[t]he City has taken great care to support and maintain the industrial character of the Industrial District". However, no explanation is given regarding how that "industrial character" would be impacted if a charter school student could study technology in the Industrial Zone. Furthermore, citing a need to maintain a vague and undefined "industrial character" bears no relationship to protecting the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the public. CONCLUSION In conclusion, STEP respectfully submits that the interpretation being urged is not consistent with the plain meaning of the ordinance. Further, there is no express limitation supporting this interpretation. Finally, the interpretation is arbitrary and bears no relationship whatsoever to protecting the health safety and welfare of the public. The School therefore requests that the April 24, 2015 decision of the City Planner be reversed. 3 Minn. stat. § 124D.09. 7 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 32 page 144 Sincerely, LAVORATO LAW OFFICES L.L.C. P By. Cindy L. Lavorato ATTORNEY FOR STEP ACADEMY 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 33 page 145 Exhibit D ECKBERG LAMMERS MEMO To: Mendota Heights Planning Commission Members From: Thomas R. Lehmann, City Attorney Date: June 8, 2015 Re: Zoning Appeal of Step Academy Charter School Mendota Heights, City of — 25373-24159 The purpose of this Memo is to outline both the procedural requirements for a zoning appeal, as well as the legal arguments regarding the appeal by Step Academy Charter School to the decision of Nolan Wall, Planner, pertaining to the interpretation of the City in that the recent application by Step Academy Charter School to establish a charter school (grades 6-12) in the industrial district of the City of Mendota Heights is not authorized pursuant to Mendota Heights City Code 12-1G- 1. A city that has adopted a zoning ordinance or official map should provide for a board of zoning adjustment and appeals. By ordinance, the City of Mendota Heights has delegated the role of zoning appeals to the City Planning Commission pursuant to Mendota Heights City Code 12-1L- 3, which provides at Paragraph A Board of Appeals; Planning Commission serve as: The planning commission is designated as the Board of Zoning Appeals and shall determine, in harmony with the general purpose of this Chapter and a comprehensive plan, by resolution, all appeals from any order, requirement, permit or decision made by the zoning administrator under this Chapter, and from any interpretation of the text of this Chapter, or any determination by the zoning administrator as to the location of the boundary of the zoning district as shown on the zoning map. In addition, Mendota Heights City Code 12-1L-3 Paragraph C outlines the duties and responsibilities for said appeal. Specifically, the Planning Commission, as the Board of Zoning Appeals, may conduct such hearings as it may deem advisable and shall prescribe what notice, if any, shall be given of such hearing. Finally, the Code sets forth the procedure in the event that the applicant wishes to appeal ultimately the decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals and said procedure for that. Specifically, Subdivision D sets forth that the Council may review and revise any decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals. In reviewing such decisions, the Council shall set a date for hearing thereon, not earlier than seven (7) days after nor more than thirty (30) days after the decision is made by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The practical procedure for said appeal is set forth in Minnesota Statute §462.354, subdivision 2. The hearing is run like a normal Planning Commission meeting wherein a decision will be made by the planning commission with regards to the circumstances brought forth. To the extent this is an appeal does not change the overall procedure. The statue sets forth that any party may appear at the hearing in person or by agent or attorney. In this case the Planning Commission Chair should call the meeting to order and depending on where in the agenda the appeal is, ask the appellant, and in this case Step Academy Charter School, to come forward and to present their position. As 1 of 4 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 34 page 146 indicated, the appellant may call witnesses. To the extent that witnesses are called, they should be administered an oath. I will be present at the hearing and I will administer the oath to any witnesses that are going to testify before the Planning Commission. The appellant may file any written briefs that it may want to and a record of the proceeding shall be kept. Once the appellant has presented their case, it will be up to the Respondent and in this case the Planning Staff for the City of Mendota Heights, to present their interpretation. At that point, the matter will be taken under advisement at which time a written decision would need to be made and adopted by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The decision by the Board is subject to the 60 -day rule pursuant to Minnesota Statute §15.99. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW When drafting and adopting a zoning ordinance, cities have enormous discretion in choosing their language and specifying uses as permitted, prohibited or conditional in particular districts. When drafting and adopting a zoning ordinance, the city is said to be utilizing its legislative (or lawmaking) authority. When using its legislative authority, the only limits on the city's zoning authority are that action must be constitutional, rational, and in some way related to protecting the health, safety and welfare of the public. This is known as the "rational basis standard" and is generally a very friendly standard for cities to meet. In contrast, when administering an existing zoning ordinance as is the case here, the city's discretion is much more limited. Generally, when reviewing a zoning application, the city is no longer acting in its legislative capacity. When reviewing zoning applications, the city is said to be exercising a quasi-judicial function. Rather than legislating for the broad population as a whole, the city is making a quasi-judicial (judge -like) determination about an individual zoning application regarding whether the application meets the standards of the city ordinance. In quasi-judicial circumstances, the city must follow the standards and requirements of the ordinance it is adopted. If an application meets the requirements of the ordinance, generally it must be granted. If an application is denied, the stated reasons for the denial must all relate to the applicant's failure to meet standards established in the ordinance. In some, the city has a great deal of liberty to establish the rules, but once established, the city is as equally bound by the rules as the public. In the present case, the appeal is a quasi-judicial matter and is subject to the requirements as set forth above. In quasi-judicial situations, a review in court will closely scrutinize the city's decision to determine whether the city has provided a legally and factually sufficient basis for denial of an application. In quasi-judicial situations, due process and equal protection are the main reasons for the more stringent scrutiny. Due process and equal protection under the law demand that similar applicants must be treated uniformly by the city. The best process for ensuring similar treatment among applicants is to establish standards in the ordinance and to provide that if standards are met, the zoning permit must be granted. An application may generally only be denied for failure to meet the standards in city ordinances. 2 of 4 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 35 page 147 A review in court will overrule a quasi-judicial city zoning decision if it determines that the decision was arbitrary (fail to treat situated applicants equally or failed to follow ordinance requirements). As indicated above, in order to be successful if this matter is challenged in the courts, it will be crucial for the adoption of appropriate findings of fact. Findings of fact are essential because they enable a review in court to sustain a city zoning decision. When land use decisions are challenged in court, the standards of review used by the courts are very limited. The city's decision will be upheld if the findings of fact demonstrate a rational and legally sufficient basis for the decision that is not arbitrary or capricious. Findings of fact should state all of the relevant facts the city considered in making its decision on the zoning application. A fact is relevant if it proves or disproves that the application meets the legal standards of the city ordinance and state law for granting the zoning request. In the present case, the appellant sets forth their initial arguments in a letter brief dated May 14, 2015. A review of the brief is inconsistent with the city's determination that the applicant and the request to establish a grade 6-12 charter school is inconsistent with the zoning code for the City of Mendota Heights. The appellant goes to great lengths to educate the planning commission with regards to rules of construction. However, that argument is misplaced with regards to the status of this matter. The Appellant seems to be arguing that the interpretation by them of the code establishes that the charter school is allowed and the city's interpretation is ambiguous. The clear reading of the code supports Mr. Wall's interpretation. Finally, it is somewhat confusing as to what the appellant seems to be asking for in the sense if there asking to have some sort of variance. A variance is a way that a city may allow an exception to part of a zoning ordinance. It is a permitted departure from strict enforcement of the ordinances applied to a particular piece of property. A variance is generally for a dimensional standard (such as setbacks or height limits). A variance allows the landowner to break the dimensional zoning rule that would otherwise apply. Sometimes, and in this case, the landowner will seek a variance to allow particular use of their property that would otherwise not be permissible under the zoning ordinance. Such variances are often termed "use variances" as opposed to "area variances" from dimensional standards. Use variances are not allowed in Minnesota. State law prohibits the City from permitting by variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for the zoning district where the property is located. In this case, a limited review of what the appellant has provided seems to be indicating that they want the City to allow them to have a different use which as indicated above is not allowed under Minnesota law. Minnesota law provides that requests for variances may be heard by a body called the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and in this case that may be exactly, in a convoluted way, what the appellant is asking for. If that is in fact the case then I want to just outline again the requirements for granting variances in the State of Minnesota. A variance may be granted if enforcement of the zoning ordinance provisions as applied to a particular piece of property caused the landowner "practical difficulties". For the variance to be 3 of 4 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 36 page 148 granted, the applicant must satisfy the statutory three -factor test for practical difficulties. If the applicant does not meet all three of the statutory tests then a variance should not be granted. Also, variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan. "Practical difficulties" is a legal standard set forth in law that cities must apply when considering applications for variances. It is a three -factor test and applies to all requests for variances. To constitute practical difficulties, all three factors of the test must be satisfied. 1. Reasonableness. The first factor is that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. This factor means that the landowner would like to use the property in a particular reasonable way but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance. It does not mean that the land cannot be put to any reasonable use whatsoever without the variance. For example, if the variance application is for a building too close to a lot line or does not meet the required setback, the focus of the first factor is whether the request to place a building there is reasonable. 2. Uniqueness. The second factor is that the landowner's problem is due to circumstances unique to the property not caused by the landowner. The uniqueness generally relates to the physical characteristics of the particular piece of property that is to the land and not personal characteristics or preferences of the landowner. When considering the variance for a building to encroach or intrude into a setback, the focus of this factor is whether there is anything physically unique about the particular piece of property such as sloping, topography, or other natural features like wetlands or trees. 3. Essential Character. The third factor is that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Under this factor, consider whether the resulting structure will be out of scale, out of place, or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area. For example, when thinking about the variance for an encroachment into a setback, the focus is how the particular building will look closer to a lot line and if that fits in with the character of the area. If this is in fact a use variance, the decision is easy for the Planning Commission sitting as the Board of Appeals. If for some other reason they set forth a variance then it will have to be looked at with regards to the statutory requirements under the practical difficulties standard. In either event, it is my opinion that City Staff correctly followed the law and its interpretation of the zoning code relative to this issue and as a result Step Academy's request would not fit within the zoning requirements of the Mendota Heights Zoning Code and should be denied. TRL c: Mark McNeill, City Administrator Nolan Wall, Planner 4 of 4 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 37 page 149 Exhibit E CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO March 16, 2000 TO: Mayor, City Council and City A ' 's or FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Dire to SUBJECT: Fort Snelling Academy Zoning Amendment Concept Discussion DISCUSSION: On Tuesday, March 14', Kevin, Pat and I met with Mr. Peter Kordell, Fort Snelling Academy President, and Dr. Mike Bennett, Fort Snelling Academy Headmaster to discuss the concept of locating their charter High School in Mendota Heights. At that meeting, Mr. Kordell and Dr. Bennett presented us with the details of a proposal to locate their school at the Metro II building within the City's Business Park. They are attempting to acquire a building, remodel it and be ready to open in the fall of 2000. Because of that ambitious time frame, they need to be on tonight's agenda in order to determine if Council will allow them to operate in the Metro H building. The Fort Snelling Academy Charter High School (FSA) was awarded its charter with the intention of remodeling several historic buildings at Fort Snelling for their campus. They encountered several roadblocks and will not be able to locate at Fort Snelling for several years. They have therefore selected Mendota Heights as their alternate location and have come to an agreement to acquire the Metro H building in our Business Park as their facility. The Metro H building is located on Mendota Heights Road at Enterprise Drive which is an "I" zoned piece of property. The "I" zone currently permits trade schools such as Brown Institute but does not permit any other type of school. Fort Snelling Academy's agreement with Metro II to purchase this building is subject to the City changing the Ordinance to allow their facility. Mr. Kordell and Dr. Mike Bennett will attend this meeting to discuss with Council the possibility of amending our Zoning Ordinance to allow for charter schools as a permitted use within the "I" zone. ACTION REOUIRED: Review with Mr. Kordell and Dr. Bennett their request, and if Council desires to implement it, direct staff to prepare the appropriate amending language for the Zoning Ordinance and order a public hearing for the Planning Commission in April. 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 38 page 150 Page No. 10 March 21, 2000 Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 FORT SNELLING ACADEMY Council acknowledged a letter from the Fort Snelling Academy requesting consideration of a Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow charter schools as a permitted use in the "I" District. Council also acknowledged an associated memo from Public Works Director Danielson. Academy President Peter Kordell and Headmaster Mike Bennett were present for the discussion. Mr. Kordell informed Council that the Fort Snelling Academy recently received its charter to operate a 400 student high school with a college preparatory curriculum and is seeking a location in Mendota Heights. Originally, the school planned to locate at Fort Snelling and renovate the barracks but that got bogged down. Fort Snelling could become a second campus if the situation warrants it. The academy is interested in locating in the former Metro II building in the city's industrial park. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that Mendota Heights was not the first choice and also stated that he is concerned that the building is available. The building was being used by a consortium of school districts for office use and community education programs and extended day programs, and he was concerned about what School District 197 will do now for community education facilities. He was also concerned about parking and about recreation facilities for the students. Mr. Kordell responded that the consortium that owns the building was disbanded and they are being forced to sell and the tenants must leave. The school district is moving its uses back to its schools. He stated that there are 115 parking spaces plus garage spaces. Regarding recreation facilities, he informed Council that the students are taken out into the community to use community fields that are not being used during the duty. Charter schools generally do not have the availability of fields like standard schools. He stated that the school is primarily academic and its athletic program is mostly fitness. There will be six buses to transport 1/3 to'/a of the student body to community facilities. He stated that the academy is looking for a site in Mendota Heights because the parents asked him to look for a site in the area. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that whenever a use is jammed into ( an area it was not designed for in the first instance, there are - problems, such as insufficient parking. 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 39 page 151 Page No. 11 March 21, 2000 i 1 Councilmember Dwyer stated that the fundamental problem is that the area is zoned Industrial, which would only allow a trade school. If Council were to change the zoning ordinance for the use, the industrial district would be opened up to future charter schools. He stated that he was not initially comfortable about giving approval to the proposal and then discovered that the academy is also asking the city to issue bonds. Mr. Kordell responded that the city would be the issuing agency but would have no financial obligation. The building company would be directly responsible for the obligation. He stated that the City of Minneapolis already had given approval to the academy for $7 million, but the school is not being located there. Briggs and Morgan is the underwriting Council and Kenard issues the bonds. He stated that there is a single investor that will purchase all of the bonds. In addition, the academy gets base aid from the state in lieu of a levy. The school cannot own the property, so the building company would own it and lease aid would finance it. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he shares Councilmember Dwyer's concerns. The building is in the industrial area and Council spent a great deal of time on planning for the area. All of the buildings are finished on all four sides and there is substantial landscaping. He did not think it is a good site for a school of 400 young adults. Controlling parking could also be significant. Mr. Kordell responded that the school has the ability to control who can drive and who cannot. Parking spots can also be leased to the students. He stated that he does not want parking to spill out onto the streets. Mayor Mertensotto asked how problems could be corrected after the school is located there. He stated that he would hate to think Council would unload a problem on the industrial park. Mr. Kordell stated that one of the reasons he is before Council is to get input, not to force the school on the city. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the initial use of the building by the consortium of schools was office use and then it became community education and then day care. He felt that the school would be the wrong fit for the location. 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 40 page 152 Page No. 12 March 21, 2000 Mr. Kordell responded that schools are allowed in the B-lA District .� and the use would fit in the GNB building, which is for sale. He informed Council that he met with the owner this morning about the possibility of the building being Plan B and he is willing to sell the building to the school. There is sufficient parking and it is a good site and location. The building is about 50% larger than the Metro II building, and the highway department has a seven year lease for the second floor. He stated that the bonds are 30 year bonds, so this would be a permanent site for the academy. He informed Council that Normandale Community College is the academy's sponsor and Normandale would bring evening classes to the community and the academy would do post secondary education with Normandale. Mayor Mertensotto informed Mr. Kordell that Roseville Properties just spent a great deal of money putting up its structures and is in the process of getting people into them. He stated that he would like to get input from them on what they would think of 400 high school students in the GNB building. He pointed out that the city has had problems at Sibley High School because of the students' having cars. Mr. Kordell responded that there would be 200 to 250 cars. Councilmember Dwyer asked if he understands correctly that the school district would open its athletic facilities to the academy during off hours. Mr. Kordell responded that they would not be using school district facilities but rather that he would ask that the students use the city's facilities during the mid-day program. He stated that most of the activities will go on within the school — dance, theater, aerobics, weight lifting, etc., but some of the students would be loaded on to small buses and taken to city parks during the noon time. The academy could also use the "Y" for swimming and the Fort Snelling fields. Councihnember Krebsbach stated that Council puts much time and thought into decisions that relate to the schools that have been in the community since 1965. She pointed out that the academy does not have a track record, and the two hour break during the day is really free time for high school students. She pointed out that high school students need a lot of supervision and during the two hour break they would have the ability to roam around the community. 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 41 page 153 Page No. 13 March 21, 2000 Mr. Kordell responded that it is not free time but rather is a structured period. They would only be taking perhaps 100 students into the community. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that at this point the plan works in concept but that the academy has no track record to show Council how it really works. The other issue is that Normandale would be offering college courses. She asked how Inver Hills Community College feels about that. Mr. Kordell responded that Normandale has instances where there are joint venture programs where an individual goes to a technical school for part of a degree and then to another community college to get the remainder of the degree. Councilmember Krebsbach pointed out that Inver Hills and Normandale are in competition with each other. Mr. Kordell stated that Normandale is an outstanding sponsor. He stated that a charter school must have a sponsor that is an educational facility. Councilmember Krebsbach responded that Normandale is an educational facility but they do not produce teachers. She asked what its role is in peer review oversight since Normandale is not involved in K-12 education and does not produce teachers. Mr. Kordell responded that Normandale provides financial oversight and accountability of student progress. In order to receive a charter, a charter school must prove to the Department of Education that it has a sound and viable program. The Fort Snelling Academy has been approved by people who know education. Mr. Bennett stated that part what charter schools are supposed to do and the reason many of them are larger than in the past is to try innovative programs and ideas. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council must deal with land uses. If St. Thomas Academy had wanted to located in the GNB building or Metro II, Council would not say they were proper sites. Council never envisioned there would be a school in those buildings. He pointed out that the Academy is talking about using one of those structures as a permanent facility. 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 42 page 154 Page No. 14 March 21, 2000 Mr. Bennett responded that his group has spent a great deal of money on Metro II because it was a school and he thought it was zoned for school. Administrator Batchelder stated that community education was operating out of the building through an annually renewable special use permit approved by Council in 1995. The school district had 12,000 of the 40,000 square feet in the building, and the special use permit was classified as community education. Councilmember Krebsbach was concerned about the plan to use city parks. She stated that her background is in education, that she has worked in open schools and knows that they can be great places in principle but not always in practice. That is why a track record is so important. Mr. Kordell responded that part of it is design. There will be one instructor for every 20 students, and only 100 of the 400 students will be using city facilities and other facilities at one time. Councilmember Huber stated that he is comparing the academy to St Thomas and Visitation and looking at their facilities, which are quite ( large. He would have a hard time picturing 400 students at Metro H when St. Thomas probably houses 500 students. Mr. Kordell responded that St. Thomas charges $12,000 per year, so they can provide a Cadillac. Charter schools have a different vision. It is an alternative to traditional schools and parents are given a choice. Many families that are looking for alternative choices. About one-third of the academy's enrollment of students that are coming from private schools to the public school system. They are looking for alternatives in the public school system that are similar to private schools. Councilmember Huber stated that this a land use issue rather than a financing issue. He stated that the academy has indicated that it desires lease aid for the building and asked what funds the school's day to day operations. Mr. Kordell responded that the school will receive general revenue aid per pupil. The school has all the obligations of the public school system, and there are no restrictions to admissions. There is a longer school day and tougher curriculum than in the public schools. 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 43 page 155 Page No. 15 March 21, 2000 Councilmember Huber asked what happens to the bond funding if the school fails. Mr. Kordell responded that the responsibility is the school's and the building company's. The property would either be sold or the building company would own it. Councilmember Dwyer stated that given that there is no track record, he believes that if Council were to take a survey in the city, people would be decidedly against the proposal. Mayor Mertensotto informed Mr. Kordell that it took Council four years to redevelop the southeast corner of the T.H. 110/Lexington Avenue intersection because of neighborhood concerns over the intersection. He ft -cher stated that the question is whether the Gould site is an appropriate place for 400 students. Mr. Kordell stated that the school would like to come into the community, if not at Metro II, then at GNB, because that is appropriately zoned. He asked where the school could be located if not at one of those sites. { Mayor Mertensotto responded that the Curley neighborhood had a big concern when Mn/DOT leased a portion of the GNB building because of the traffic it might generate. Since that time, the office park was developed. He stated that he would really be concerned about putting in a 400 student school after someone makes such a substantial investment. The school would also be putting considerable stress on the city's recreational facilities. Mr. Kordell informed Council that if he finds site on which to build the school, he could defer starting the school for one year. Responding to a question, he stated that the school is not restricted to a geographic area in its charter and could locate anywhere it wants. The academy sent a mailing to 5,000 families around the Fort Snelling site, including Mendota Heights, Highland Park, St. Paul, Bloomington, etc. He stated that the school could locate in Burnsville or Inver Grove Heights if it wanted to but that he wants to be in the area where the 115 families with enrolled students wants it to be. Mr. Kordell stated that if the two sites are not viable, the third option would be to purchase and build on the land at the end of the Mendota �: Bridge, which is zoned B 1-A and is not developed. He asked if he 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 44 page 156 Page No. 16 March 21, 2000 would receive any different reasons as to land use if they were to build a first class facility on the site. Councilmember Dwyer stated that his immediate reaction is that the site would be a spectacular place for commercial or townhouse use. The air noise is awful but the view is second to none, and if appropriate sound attenuation were installed, the site could be ideal for the school. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the Metropolitan Council would likely object because of the proximity to the runway. Safety of the students will be a big factor. He informed Mr. Kordell that there is no public subsidy (TIF) available for the land purchase or development. ' Mr. Kordell responded that the school does not need public subsidy and will be using private funding. He further stated that the academy is not asking the city to participate in the acquisition of the land, making it a buildable lot, or for assistance with noise attenuation. All that will be requested is conduit financing. He stated that if it is amenable to the city, the academy would like to proceed with the third option. Councilmember Dwyer stated that Cannot give a consensus this evening but that he would keep an open mind to that presentation. Councilmember Huber stated that he would consider the site but would not support the other sites. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that being a former K-12 educator, she cannot see the GNB building as being appropriate. The learning environment would be a great deal different on the bluff site, but she would have to look at it fresh. Mayor Mertensotto stated that it is apparent that Council would be amenable to looking at a proposal for the site as long as there is no public subsidy. . sE Tie. 1 99 ^^ Counc mowledged a request from Mr. Michael W schneider for a six monffiexIQrasion of the conditional us rmit granted to him for construction o' ached gar 1289 Lakeview Avenue and a variance to allow installa a 12 foot garage door instead of a 9 foot door as was wally propos a conditional use permit expired arch 7. Council also ackno ed an associat emo from Assistant Hollister. Mr. Wandschn ' r was en for the discussion. 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 45 page 157 Page No. 10 May 1, 2001 sor Mertensotto stated that Council must deny the applicati ot so that there is no problem with the 120 day rule, bu the Grothe an come up with another plan they can submitx( o staff and staff c determine if it can come directly to Co it or if it must go to th lanning Commission. Council c give the applicants 60 da to come back with an alte ive plan without an additional planning lication fee. Councilmember Dwyer sta d that t Grothes may have to decide between the pool and the play tune. No Council action would be required to install the five foo e e around the swimming pool if the setback requirement is et. Councilmember Sclifteeman moved adoptiof Resolution No. 01- 20, "A RESOL ION DENYING A TWO -'. T FENCE HEIGHT V ANCE APPLICATION FOR 87 NDAKOTA COURT/"ith the understanding that the applicant 1 be allowed to colpe back within 60 days to have the city consider ternative so ion with no additional application fee. ouncilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: S Nays: 0 CHARTER SCHOOL Mr. Scott Qualle, from Walsh Partners, was present to request preliminary feedback from Council with respect to the possibility of amending the zoning ordinance to allow a charter school in the Metro II building in the industrial park. Council acknowledged a memo from Assistant Hollister along with information submitted by Mr. Qualle. Mr. Qualle stated that he was approached by School Start, which represents charter schools that are looking for space. The Twin Cities International Elementary School and the Minnesota International Middle school are chartered by the state and are ready to go but they do not have any space. The Metro II building has classrooms on the lower level and office space on the second floor. It was his understanding that a conditional use permit was granted in the past for kindergarten and pre -kindergarten classes in the past. The property is zoned industrial and he would like to find out if the zoning ordinance could be amended to allow the charter schools to use the space. He stated that he is asking for an indication that he should appear before the Planning Commission to pursue the conditional use process for schools in the I District. 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 46 page 158 Page No. 11 May 1, 2001 Mayor Mertensotto responded that Council was approached about a year ago by another charter school looking at the site. The question Council had to address was whether this was a place where Council wanted a school. It was the consensus that if the city wanted a school in the I District, the ordinance would have been created that way in the first instance. The prior party came back asking for approval to use the GNB building. Again, Council told them that the GNB building was not the place for a school. His opinion is that if the city wanted schools in those districts in the first instance, the properties would have been zoned for school use. He pointed out that there is considerable of traffic passing through the industrial park, which is why few schools are found in industrial areas. He felt it would be inappropriate to put any type of school in an industrial area because of the type of traffic through the area. Councilmembers Schneeman and Vitelli agreed. Mr. Qualle responded that the building has already been used as a school by District 197. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that Co-uncil was very reluctant to allow the use, which was special programming for older students and adults through the community education program. It was not used as an elementary school. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the school district changed the nature of the use without Council's permission. Mr. Qualle stated that there is not enough parking available for office use and the property has been off the tax rolls for a long time. There would be no co -mingling of students and office workers. There is more than ample parking space for the use. It is already built out for classrooms. He stated that he has been looking for space for this school for two and one half months and the best space he has found is old warehouses in Minneapolis. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the building was built by a telephone company as a technical support building, which is the reason for the shortage of parking. The building was sold to a consortium of school districts who got together and bought the building because it would make an excellent single purpose data processing setting for them. They had to sell it because of financing requirements and the school district subsequently leased it. 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 47 page 159 Page No. 12 May 1, 2001 Councilmember Dwyer pointed out that the charter school is talking (" about 350 students in the building. He stated that while he appreciates that they are having difficulty finding a site, he cannot in good conscience approve of 350 children at this site. Mr. John McCall, from School Start, stated that he understands Council's interest in maintaining the current zoning classification. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council feels very strongly that it should maintain the industrial character of the industrial park. All members of Council agreed. ouncil acknowledged a memo from Assistant Hollister relative to a re est from AAA Garage Door Company for a determination o whe er its use of the Mendota Bike building would be subst ially simil o other permitted B-2 uses. Mr. Todd Xullinax stated that he owns a business in Ea and would like to urchase the Mendota Bike building an elocate his business. He t with staff and was advised that hi use is not specifically desi ted as a permitted use in the B District but it does fall into a num er of similar classification . He informed Council that his company sells garage doors d electric door openers to home owner The homeowners ould come to the show room and pick out a door, d AAA door. He has a catalog of d rs for of the doors he sells are speci orde to the homes and the doors they and placed in a dumpster. The c service people's homes and ar of 1 standard stock inventory in t e built deliver and install the le to view, and about 50% be new doors are taken out are brought back to the shop 's trucks are stored at the on site. There will be some Councilmember Dwyer ylced how often se%iis would pull in with garage doors. f Mr. Mullinax resp nded that business is heavier Nithe fall and sometimes they 'll have a delivery once a week th From January throw May, there will probably be a truck a onth delivering ors to the site. They are probably more tru cs coming to the bilc shop now than his business will generate. Co ilmember Krebsbach stated that the owner of the bike Ce. in recently and proposed to sell it to someone else who t expand the building. Council told him it could not be exp; l 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 48 page 160 Affidavit of Publication State of Minnesota SS County of Dakota E. KITTY SUNDBERG , being duly sworn, on oath, says that he/she is the publisher or authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as SOUTH-WEST REVIEW and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. (B) The printed NOTICE OF HEARING which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week, for 1 successive weeks; it was first published on SUNDAY , the "f H day of JUNE 2015 and was thereafter printed and published on every to and including , the day of , 20 ; and printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition and publication of the notice: *ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ *ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ *abcd efg hijkl mnopq rstu vwxyz Subscribed and sworn to before me on t is 8 THday of JUNE 2015 I' G TITLE --LEGAL OO•D. O- Notary Public *Alphabet should be in the same size and kind of type as the notice. TONYA R. WHITEHEAD RATE INFORMATION �lotary Publio-Minnesota My Commission Expires Jen 91, 2U20 (1). owest c asslfied rate Daid by commercial users for comparable space............................................................$25.00 per col. inch (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter...........................................$25.00 per col. inch (3) Rate actually charged for the above matter.......................................................$ per col. inch 1/15 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN APPEAL'FROM A ! ZONINGDETERMINATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that, the Planning Commission,' acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals, of Men. dots. Heights willmeet at "7:00 P.M', or as soon as possible thereafter, on Tuesday, June 23 2015 inr the Ciry' Hall Council Chambers, 1101' 12 (South -V 6/23/15 Board of Zoning Appeals Packet - Page 49 page 161 page 162 Official Affidavit of Publication was unavailable for the packet page 163 9a. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota He,ynu 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com , T mCITY OF MENDDTA HEIGHTS DATE: July 7, 2015 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Variance at 949 Mendota Heights Road BACKGROUND The applicant, Saint Thomas Academy, is seeking a variance from the sign size requirements to erect a sign on the control room/press box overlooking the athletic field/track facing Mendota Heights Road. The proposed 88 -square foot sign exceeds the size requirements and requires a variance. The control room/press box was approved by conditional use permit in 1994, as part of Planning Case 94-04. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at the June 23 meeting; there were no public comments. Several Planning Commission members commented that the Council should consider accommodating reasonable institutional use requests other than by variance, which could require amendments to the Code. BUDGETIMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance request, with conditions, as described in Planning Case 2015-21. If the City Council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion adopting RESOLUTION 201549 APPROVING A VARIANCE AT 949 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD. This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 164 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2015-49 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE AT 949 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD WHEREAS, Saint Thomas Academy has applied for a variance to erect a sign at 949 Mendota Heights Road as proposed in Planning Case 2015-21 and described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting on June 23, 2015. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the variance request as proposed in Planning Case 2015-21 is hereby approved based on the following findings of fact: 1. The subject parcel is significantly larger than standard residential properties, which restricts the ability to read signage from the surrounding streets. 2. The maximum sign area requirement imposed in the R-1 District better reflects the signage needs of residential uses, rather than institutional uses, and is unique to the subject property. 3. A sign in the proposed location meeting the maximum sign area requirement would likely be too small for its intended purpose due to the expansive setback from Mendota Heights Road and presents a practical difficulty for the applicant. 4. Similar signage consistent with the size of the proposed sign has been approved for other buildings on campus and for other institutional uses in the City. 5. The proposed sign will not negatively impact the surrounding properties. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the variance request as proposed in Planning Case 2015-21 is hereby approved with the condition that a sign permit is obtained. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this seventh day of July, 2015. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST: Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 165 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com , T mCITY OF MENDDTA HEIGHTS DATE: June 23, 2015 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2015-21 Sign Size Variance Request APPLICANT: Saint Thomas Academy PROPERTY ADDRESS: 949 Mendota Heights Road ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One -Family Residential/PS Private School ACTION DEADLINE: August 2, 2015 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is seeking a variance from the sign size requirements in Title 12 -1D -15-H(3) of the City Code for nonresidential uses within a residential zoning district. BACKGROUND The subject parcel is approximately 43 acres and contains the Saint Thomas Academy campus, including several buildings and athletic fields. The applicant intends to erect the proposed sign on the control room/press box overlooking the athletic field/track facing Mendota Heights Road. The proposed sign's size exceeds the square footage requirements for such a use and requires a variance. ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan The subject parcel is guided PS Private School in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant's request to erect additional signage on campus is consistent with the continued use as a private school. Variance According to Title 12 -1D -15-H(3) of the City Code: H. Signs In R Districts: Within the R districts, the following signs are permitted: 3. One nameplate sign for each permitted use or use by conditional use permit other than residential, and such sign shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet in area per surface. The control room/press box was approved by conditional use permit in 1994, as part of Planning Case 94- 04. The proposed sign totals 88.125 square feet, which exceeds the 12 -square foot requirement. When considering a variance for the proposed sign, the City is required to find that: page 166 1. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive plan and the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. The applicant's request to erect identification signage on the control room/press box above the athletic field/track is a reasonable use of the property. Future signage requests were anticipated as part of the approval of the CUP in 1994, which required City Council approval. Besides the proposed size, the sign is otherwise compliant with the Code and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The applicant establishes there are practical difficulties with complying with the ordinance due to circumstances that are unique to the property which are not created by the applicant or based on economic considerations. The subject parcel is zoned R-1 One -Family Residential, but functions as an institutional use. The 12 - square foot maximum sign area requirement imposed in the R-1 District better reflects the signage needs of residential uses, rather than institutional uses. As a result, the variance request in this case is unique to the subject property. The purpose of identification signage is to convey information and, therefore, it must be appropriately -sized depending on the location. Due to the over 460 -foot setback from Mendota Heights Road, the proposed location of the sign on the control room/press box meeting the 12 -square foot size requirement would likely be too small for its intended purpose; therefore establishing a practical difficulty in this case. In addition, similar signage consistent with the size of the proposed sign has been approved for other buildings on campus and for other institutional uses in the City. 3. The request will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed sign would be located on a structure that was approved in its current location in 1994 and would be most visible from Mendota Heights Road (see attached photo). The subject parcel is bordered by an office building to the west, school -owned property to the south across Mendota Heights Road, and the Visitation Monastery and School property to the east across Lake Drive. While the subject parcel is zoned R-1, the nearest residential properties are over 1,700 feet away and the proposed sign would have no visual impact on the neighborhoods. ALTERNATIVES Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the variance request to exceed the sign size requirements in a residential zoning district based on the attached findings of fact, with the condition that the applicant obtain a sign permit. roib Recommend denial of the variance request to exceed the sign size requirements in a residential zoning district based on the fmdings of fact that a practical difficulty is not established and reasonable use can be made of the property without a variance. rem, 3. Table the request. page 167 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the variance request to exceed the sign size requirements in a residential zoning district based on the attached findings of fact (Alternative 91), with the condition that the applicant obtain a sign permit. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Aerial site map 2. Site photo 3. Planning applications, including supporting materials page 168 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Sign Size Variance Request 949 Mendota Heights Road — Saint Thomas Academy The following Findings of Fact are made in support of the proposed request: The subject parcel is significantly larger than standard residential properties, which restricts the ability to read signage from the surrounding streets. 2. The maximum sign area requirement imposed in the R-1 District better reflects the signage needs of residential uses, rather than institutional uses, and is unique to the subject property. 3. A sign in the proposed location meeting the maximum sign area requirement would likely be too small for its intended purpose due to the expansive setback from Mendota Heights Road and presents a practical difficulty for the applicant. 4. Similar signage consistent with the size of the proposed sign has been approved for other buildings on campus and for other institutional uses in the City. 5. The proposed sign will not negatively impact the surrounding properties. Planning Case 2015-21 949 Mendota Heights Road Saint Thomas Academy Date- 6/15/2015 0 240 m SCALE IN FEET a" 0177 t 94.7 ----------------------------------------------- ------------ ----------------- -- _ - 4 ----------:--------------- ---------------------------------------- ----- { . i 950 L i > A- metncs i GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. City of Mendota Heights Planning Case 2015-21 page 170 Proposed sign location from Mendota Heights Road (looking north) ir `CxnQ r f ry i f � ( F / /' i • .F'Y C `r ,� f!� r%�lV� " � 1 Source: Staff (06.08. 15) page 171 SAINT THOMAS ACADEMY To: Mendota Heights Planning Commission / City Council From: Paul Solmon Date: May 28, 2015 Re: Letter of Intent Concerning Proposed Signage for Saint Thomas Academy Press Box This past January Academy Administration was approached by Alumni and representatives of the Saint Thomas Academy Class of 2015, expressing interest in sponsoring signage on the main field press box. After completing design work the senior class moved forward with fundraising. The class has now completed raising the funds necessary for the new Home of the CADETS and "ST" logo signage. Based upon the attached submission package, we are asking the Planning Commission to consider granting a variance based on the nature and use of this facility. The new sign is intended to show school pride, improve visitor way -finding and add character to the existing structure. Si Paul A. Solmon Director of Facilities CC: Matthew Mohs, Headmaster 949 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA 55120 651.454.4570 651.454.4574 FAx www.cADETs.com page 172 1101 V;ctona Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 hy, v- w.111C ry � .finer d C) t a - h e i g 1) ts.co 1-1) C 1 1, Y QP MENDOTA HEIGHTS APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Property Address/Street Location: 949 Mendota Heights Road, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Applicant Name: Paul Solmon Applicant E -Mail Address: psolmon@cadets.com Phone: 651-683-1536 Applicant Mailing Address. 949 Mendota Heights Rd, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Property Owner Name: Saint Thomas Academy Phone: 651-454-4570 Property Owner Mailing Address: 949 Mendota Heights Rd, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 _ Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) Parcel ID: 27-03500-51-010, Plat Name SECTION 35 TWN 28 RANGE 23 NE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 EX N 198 FT OF E 636 FT, Lot and Block 35 28 23 PLS Location NE1/4 SW1/4 SECTION 35-028-23 Type of Request: Press Box Wall Signage LJ Rezoning Ll Conditional Use Permit A Variance Ll Wetlands Permit LJ Subdivision Approval L3 Critical Area Permit L3 Conditional Use Permit for PUD Ll Preliminary/Final Plat Approval L3 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ll Code Amendment Q Lot Split L3 Other I hereby declare that all statements made in this request an on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to insppco4i"pove property during daylight hours. May 27, 2015 601, -1 04rr, W�A A 911 Signature of Owner (if more than one) Date Planning Application (modified 112812014) Page 1 of 1 page 173 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, HN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.4518940 fay. IV :V VJ.11lf?r'IGOiB-h@It:It1t5 =U111 cll'y or MENDOTA HEIGHTS VARIANCE CHECKLIST/QUESTIONNAIRE Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Office. Use Only., Planning Commission and/or City Council only after all required materials have been submitted. Application Case 2— 1 7--( submittal deadlines are available on the City's website Applicant: X--c,-t I e, or by contacting the City Planner. Late or incomplete applications will not be put on the agenda. Address: -qltl ,t4e4,,t, t-. 6LZ41 A variance is a request to vary from the City of Mendota Heights zoning standards. Under Minnesota State Law, variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning code and when consistent with the comprehensive plan. Variances may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning standards. "Practical difficulties," in regards to variance requests, has three parts: (1) the proposed use of the property is a reasonable; (2) unique circumstances exist on the property which are not created by the landowner; and (3) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Please consider these requirements carefully before requesting a variance. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: • Dated original of all the materials checked must be submitted by the end of the business day the Monday before the first Tuesday of the month. • If all original materials are 11 x 17 or smaller - only submit originals. • If materials are larger than 11 x 17, please provide 24 copies, folded to 8 Y2x 11. • Any drawing in color - must submit 24 copies. The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: Fee, as included in Fee Schedule (check payable to City of Mendota Heights) NOTE: Planning Application fees do not cover building permit fees, utilities, or other fees which may be required for you to complete your project Completed Application Form (only original needs to be submitted). Sketch plan showing all pertinent dimensions, and including the location of any easements having an influence upon the variance request. Letter of Intent. Please complete the attached questions regarding your request Variance Checklist/Questionnaire (modified 121612013) Page 1 of 3 12-14 --� page 174 Please answer the following questions as they relate to the variance request. You may fill in this form or create your own. 1. In your opinion, does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? YES ❑ NO Why or why not? Yes, the proposal does put the property to use in a reasonable manner in that it is anticipated by the 1994 Mendota Heights resolution approving the conditional use permit to build the Accessory Structure (Control Room/Press Box). "Resolution No. 94-22,...8. That any future requests for signage will be subject to City Council approval; and ..." The added signage will aid in campus visitor way finding while the topography and distance from surrounding residential areas will be sufficient not to interfere with people's enjoyment of their own property. There does not exist within Mendota Heights, any privately owned, R-1 zoned, property with a direct line -of -site to the proposed signage. The existing Control Room/Press Box building and athletic field do not encroach on any known easements. The closest point on the building is approximately 463 feet from Mendota Heights Rd. There are no structures within 800 feet of the building that are not owned by Saint Thomas Academy. 2. Please describe the circumstances unique to the property (not created bV Vou). All of the property owned by Saint Thomas Academy is zoned R-1. Acknowledging that the city zoning ordinance for signage in R-1 zones limits the total signage area to 12 square feet, Saint Thomas Academy is asking the Planning Commission to consider granting a variance based on the uses of this facility. It is a common practice for schools to place similar signage on bleachers and Control Room/Press Boxes. Nearby in West St. Paul, St. Croix Lutheran has a generally equivalent sign on their Control Room/Press Box. Due to the large setbacks it would not be possible to design signage legible from the street with the code allowed space. In addition the allowable space would be out of proportion with existing campus signage. The proposed letters will consist of 18.5" high "Home of the", 32.5" high "CADETS", and a 38" high "ST" logo. 3. In your opinion, will the variance, if granted, fit with the character of the neighborhood? id YES ❑ NO Whv or why not? Yes, if granted, the variance will fit with the character of the neighborhood. Since the early 1960s, Saint Thomas Academy has been located on the shores of Rogers Lake. The Academy is bounded by Patterson Companies property (B -1A) to the west, 1-494 to the south, and our only immediate neighbor to the East is the Visitation Monastery and School, also zoned R-1. By many measures Saint Thomas Academy with the Cadets, and Visitation School with the Blazers define the character of our neighborhood; we are both R-1 District permitted use schools. The two schools both own property that straddles Mendota Heights Road for approximately 3000 feet, we both have involved communities and first time guests that visit our campuses. Appropriately placed and sized signage will enhance school spirit; this signage is being funded by a donation from our 2015 graduating seniors and families. Additionally this signage will enhance visitor way finding and could also improve traffic safety. The Planning Commission must make an affirmative finding on all of the criteria listed above in order to grant a variance. The applicant for a variance has the burden of proof to show that all of the criteria listed above have been satisfied. Variance Checklist/Questionnaire (modified 92/6/2093) Page 2 of 3 O b U N zz 0 ow n ~ ~ a Yea bm W H < o U] O C1 G Q o W LL in x Z x Z Q v'v E O Z acs act - ZI _ z z 0 H3 nmox `ice Ho x hoa x O b U N 0 co Z- z F/5 i T ct cc CIO C) U) E- CL 0 Print Preview Planning Case 2015-21 Public Hearing Notice Mailing List Page 1 of 1 page 177 270350051010 270350027011 949 MENDOTA HEIGHTS RD CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS STTH0MAS ACADEMY 276455000180 2.70350005020 2351 SWAN DR 949 MENDOTA HEIGHTS RD DOUGLAS E & KAREN E HENNES STTH0MAS ACADEMY 274130014015 270350075020 PATTERSON COMPANIES INC 0 ST THOMAS ACADEKY 275667501010 276455000160 10 1031 MENDOTA HEIGHTS RD 2371 SWAM DR PATTERS ON DENTAL CO THOMAS M & SALLY MCNAMARA 276455000170 2357 SWAN DR RONALD & MARY K SMITH 276610001010 ST TH O MAS ACADEMtY 276610001020 0 950 MENDOTA HEIGHTS RD ST TH0MAS ACADEMY 270350076020 ST TH 0 MAS ACADEMY 270350028010 949 MENDOTA HEIGHTS RD ST TH0MAS ACADEMY 270350050010 ST THOMAS ACADEMY 0 270350078010 VISITATION MONASTERY 270350081010 VISITATION MONASTERY 270350076010 VISITATION MONASTERY 270350005010 2455 VISITATION DR VISITATION MONASTERY 110 270350075010 VISITATION MONASTERY Disclaimer_ flap and parcel data arebelieved to be accurate, but accuracy is notguaranfeed_ This is not a legal Map Scale document and should arot be substituted Fara title search appraisal, survey, or forzoning verification_ Dakota 1 inch = 1489 feet County assurnes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. 6/2/2,015 http://gis.co. dakota.mn.uslDCGISIWebFonnsIPrint.aspx?img=http:Hgis.co.dakota.mn.us/Co... 6/2/2015 State ofMGooesm" ^ '' K SS Cniintv of Dakota ` being duly sworn, onoath, says that he/she is the publisher or authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as SOUTH-WEST REVIEW and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated b'elow: (4) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification an o qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331 A.02, 331 A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. NOTICE OF HEARING (B) The printed which iaattached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week, for l successive weeks; it was first published on SUNDAY T* ' the 7^' day of ]UNE . 2»l5 and was thereafter printed and published on every to and inc|uding. the ______ day of . 20____; and printed bo|ovv is a copy nfthe lower case alphabet from Ato Z. both ino|usive, which is hereby acknowledged an being the size and hind of type used inthe composition and publication ofthe notice: ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ Subscribed and sworn to before me on -m h»� day of JUNE 211 l5 Notary Public *Alphabet should beinthe same size and kind oftype aothe notice. TONYA R. WHITEHEAD RATE INFORMATION Notary public -Minnesota (1) i ied'hshapaid Uy (2) Maximum rate allowed bylaw for the above matter ........................................... $25.00per col. inch (3) Rate actually charged for the above matter ....................................................... $ per col. inch 1/i5 page 179 page 180 9b. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.82 ` www.mendota•heights.con T mCITY OF MENDDTA HEIGHTS DATE: July 7, 2015 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Preliminary Plat at 2511 and 2525 Condon Court BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting to plat three new lots at 2511 & 2525 Condon Court from two existing single family lots plus an additional smaller parcel acquired from MnDOT right-of-way. The existing lots contain two single-family dwellings with detached garages, which would be demolished. Two of the proposed lots are for a pair of new twin homes each and the third lot is for a new detached single family home. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at the June 23 meeting. Representatives from the adjacent property to the south provided comments and discussed some potential issues for consideration. Staff incorporated some of those comments into the conditions of approval, the rest can be handled as part of the development agreement negotiations should the project proceed. If approved, the applicant will have to come back before the Council for final plat approval at a subsequent meeting. BUDGETIMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat, with conditions, as described in Planning Case 2015-20. If the City Council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion adopting RESOLUTION 201548 APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT AT 2511 AND 2525 CONDON COURT. This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 181 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2015-48 RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT AT 2511 AND 2525 CONDON COURT WHEREAS, Dick Bjorklund Properties LLC has applied for a preliminary plat at 2511 and 2525 Condon Court as proposed in Planning Case 2015-20 and described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting on June 23, 2015. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the preliminary plat request as proposed in Planning Case 2015-20 is hereby approved based on the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed plat meets the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code, including proposed uses, lot size, lot width and setbacks. The lot widths for Lots 1, 2, and 3 meet the intent of the Code in terms of access and adequate spacing, even though they do not meet the letter of the Code definition. 2. The proposed plat meets the purpose and intent of the Subdivision Code, including grading, drainage, and lot arrangement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the preliminary plat request as proposed in Planning Case 2015-20 is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. $8,100.00 Park Dedication Fee is to be paid to the City, prior to final plat approval. 2. A Developer's Agreement will be executed with the City detailing the responsibilities of all parties involved with development of the platted area. This will include a detailed description of municipal utility installation, landscaping and building and driveway placement. 3. All grading and construction activity and stormwater management facilities associated with future development of the platted area will be in compliance with all Federal, State, and Local Regulations and Codes, as well as in compliance with the City's Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 4. Construction activity will be in compliance with restrictions outlined in City Code. 5. A final plat is submitted for City Council review. 6. A final landscape plan, including planting sizes, is included as part of the final building plans. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this seventh day of July, 2015. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST: Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 182 Item No. 2015-20 MEMORANDUM Date: June 23, 2015 To: Mendota Heights Planning Commission From: Phil Carlson, AICP, Consulting Planner; RE: Planning Case 2015-20: Dick Bjorklund Properties LLC Preliminary Plat -The Oaks Action Deadline: August 7, 2015 (60 days from complete application submittal) INTRODUCTION The applicant, Dick Brjorklund Properties LLC, wishes to plat three new lots at 2511 & 2525 Condon Court from two existing single family lots plus an additional smaller parcel acquired from MnDOT right-of-way, and has applied for preliminary and final plat approval. The applicant is calling all five new proposed dwellings "townhouses": two of the lots are for a pair of new twin homes each and the third lot is for a new detached single family home. BACKGROUND • The proposed plat name is The Oaks. • The subject property is 1.34 acres (58,244 square feet) in area. This includes the newly added Tract A from MnDOT, which is 0.08 acre (3,366 square feet). This parcel was acquired to provide the minimum 10,000 -square -foot lot size for the new twin home lots. • The property is guided MR Medium Density Residential in the City's Land Use Plan. A change from LB to MR was approved in January 2015 by the City. • The property is zoned R-2 Medium Density Residential. A change from R-1 to R-2 was approved in January 2015 by the City. • There are two single family homes on the property now, which will be razed to make room for the new dwellings. • There is a separate parcel owned by others at the south end of Condon Court which is still guided LB and zoned B-1, and is not part of this application. • There is no maximum standard for impervious surface lot coverage on residential lots, but that information is provided on the attached plans - total proposed impervious coverage on the site is 28.5%. Design with community in mind June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Page 2 of 6 Reference: 2015-20, Dick Bjorklund Properties LLC ANALYSIS 1) The proposed plat consists of three lots: page 183 • Lot 1 - single family lot o Minimum lot size: 15,000 sq ft required, 18,244 sq ft proposed o Minimum lot width: 100' required, 104' proposed Lots 2 & 3 - 2 -family lot o Minimum lot size: 10,000 sq ft each (20,000 sq ft combined) o Proposed minimum lot size: 10,000 sq ft each (20,000 sq ft combined) o Minimum lot width: 100' required, 108' proposed • Lots 4 & 5 - 2 -family lot o Minimum lot size: 10,000 sq ft each (20,000 sq ft combined) o Proposed minimum lot size: 10,000 sq ft each (20,000 sq ft combined) o Minimum lot width: 100' required, 136' proposed 2) The Zoning Code definition of lot width comes into play in analyzing this plat: LOT WIDTH: The maximum horizontal distance between the side lot lines of a lot measured within the first thirty feet (30') of the lot depth. Taken literally, the definition would disqualify three of the five lots in this plat. standard lots The top graphic on the next page shows how the "first 30' of lot depth" is narrower than 100' due to the jog in the front lot line. A common sense I interpretation is warranted, in my opinion, to allow these lots as shown. I The purpose of the minimum lot width is to make sure there is adequate — — — j frontage for access and the frontage is not crowded with homes close together. It is measured in the first 30 feet so there is no loophole for very — — — narrow slivers of lots next to each other that only get to the required width Narrow Fronts - very far back on the lot. See graphic to the right. Crowded In the case of the Bjorklund plat what keeps the lot width from meeting the letter of the Code is the right-of-way for Condon Court, which is actually 1.,. ` 1 part of MnDOT right-of-way. Mr. Bjorklund purchased a portion of the right- of-way to allow his lots to be large enough to meet the lot size minimum. ■ ,� There is nothing directly in front of the proposed homes between the home and the street but lot and right-of-way. This makes the notch in the corners of Lot 1 and Lot 3 "de facto" lot area where nothing else will be built. It will 1 appear as part of the lot and the purpose of the lot width minimum will be preserved: there is no crowding and access is assured. June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Page 3 of 6 Reference: 2015-20, Dick Bjorklund Properties LLC page 184 Ej +" Literal Code interpretation I f �`—�- "first 30' of the lot depth" I Lot width = 47' + 100' req'd) TLot width = 73' ± (100' req'd) 7 _IJ .r} I #fid; d ea vaso 4 s f � �I— r IJ --------------- LOT ------ r -- LOT4 ' —�I I M g■ Design with community in mind a- r De Facto Code interpretation De facto lot area "first 30' of the lot depth" Lot width = 104.4' (100' req'd) Lot width = 134.5' (100' req'd) De facto lot area June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Page 4 of 6 Reference: 2015-20, Dick Bjorklund Properties LLC page 185 3) The proposed homes on the new lots are shown on the preliminary plat meet all setbacks. 4) The Subdivision Code requires park dedication for the three new lots at $2,700 per lot - five new lots replacing two existing lots - totaling $8,100. 5) Grading and erosion control plans for the new plat are acceptable. 6) The preliminary landscape plan shows the trees and vegetation to be removed and new trees to be planted. The plan is reasonable. 7) An overhead power line on the west side of Condon Court will be moved to the east side at the applicant's expense. 8) There is currently no sanitary sewer serving the lots, which will have to be extended from northwest of the site. 9) Prior to the City signing the Final Plat, the following actions will take place on the part of the applicant: a. $8,100.00 Park Dedication Fee is to be paid to the City. b. A Developer's Agreement will be executed with the City detailing the responsibilities of all parties involved with development of the platted area. This will include a detailed description of municipal utility installation, landscaping and building and driveway placement. c. All grading and construction activity associated with future development of the platted area will be in compliance with all Federal, State, and Local Regulations and Codes, as well as in compliance with the City's Land Disturbance Guidance Document. d. Construction activity will be in compliance with restrictions outlined in City Code. page 186 June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Page 5 of 6 Reference: 2015-20, Dick Bjorklund Properties LLC STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat application for The Oaks submitted by Dick Bjorklund Properties LLC with the following conditions: 1. $8,100.00 Park Dedication Fee is to be paid to the City, prior to final plat approval. 2. A Developer's Agreement will be executed with the City detailing the responsibilities of all parties involved with development of the platted area. This will include a detailed description of municipal utility installation, landscaping and building and driveway placement. 3. All grading and construction activity associated with future development of the platted area will be in compliance with all Federal, State, and Local Regulations and Codes, as well as in compliance with the City's Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 4. Construction activity will be in compliance with restrictions outlined in City Code. 5. A final plat is submitted for City Council review. REQUESTED ACTION Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of preliminary plat with conditions OR 2. Recommend denial W 3. Table the request, pending additional information from staff or others. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW The following exhibits are attached for your review: 1. Aerial site Map 2. Planning Applications 3. Plan Set 4. MnDOT letter June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Page 6 of 6 Reference: 2015-20, Dick Bjorklund Properties LLC FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Preliminary Plat The Oaks page 187 1. The proposed plat meets the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code, including proposed uses, lot size, lot width and setbacks. The lot widths for Lots 1, 2, and 3 meet the intent of the Code in terms of access and adequate spacing, even though they do not meet the letter of the Code definition. 2. The proposed plat meets the purpose and intent of the Subdivision Code, including grading, drainage, and lot arrangement. Planning Case 2015-20 2511 & 2525 Condon Court � I 162 `4 1 I I Date- 6/16/2015 00 N:6� i .-cS RO ASI p 0 80 SCALE IN FEET City of MMendota Heights ,I I GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. page 189 Dick Bjorklund Properties, LLC 2324 Field Stone Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120-1920 Cell No. 651-261-9980 May 29, 2015 City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 To the City Planner, Members of the Planning Commission, and Members of the City Council RE: 2511 & 2525 Condon Court ("The Oaks") Preliminary Plat Application I'd like to take this opportunity again to express my excitement in making this application. This is the next step in the process to make this townhouse concept turn into a reality. Background: I own two existing properties on Condon Court, they are 2511 & 2525 Condon Court. Both of these properties are older houses. The first property, 2511 Condon Court is located on the north corner of Condon Court and Mendota Heights Road and was built in 1940. It is a 932 square foot, 1 1/2 story house. The second property, 2525 Condon Court is located just to the south of 2511. It was built in 1948 and moved to this current location in 1954. It is a 1 story rambler with 1156 square feet. In December of 2014, I applied for a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning. page 190 On January 6, 2015 1 received approval from the City Council of Mendota Heights for the comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning request. This is in City of Mendota Heights Resolution 2015-02. On February 12, 2015 1 received notice from the Metropolitan Council that they had approved my comprehensive plan request according to Resolution 2015-02. On May 19, 2015 I received approval from the Minnesota Dept. of Transportation for a conveyance of property. I have paid the Minnesota Dept. of Transportation the amount requested. I am waiting for their quit claim deed which should arrive any day. Upon receiving the Minnesota Dept. of Transportation conveyance I was able to have my surveyor update the survey showing the new conveyance. This enabled me to meet the 20,000 square feet requirement, and therefore make this application. My Plan: My proposal is to build five new townhouses on the property. This would consist of two 2 -unit buildings and 1 single unit building. I plan to connect all the units to the city sewer and water system. The existing water is to the north along Mendota Heights Road. The sewer will have to come from the west along Mendota Heights Road and then have the sewer/water connections on the west side of the property. I believe that I have a unique property here. The front setbacks from the street are huge! Almost all the townhouses that 1 have seen are just behind the curb. We are about 100 feet back! The sideyard dimensions are also more than required by city ordinance. As the owner of this property, my goal is to build this fall. Since I believe in this development with all my heart, and as a lifelong resident of Mendota Heights, I want to not only see this development happen, I want to live here also! I want to do a fabulous job! page 191 My hope is that people will see this as a fantastic development and a great place to live! Thank you for your consideration, �I.ICAe. Dick Bjorklund page 192 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651:452.8940 fax ` vlww:mendota-lieiJ(tts:cUm CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Property Address/Street Location: ZS 1 14 ZSZS �d,r Applicant Name: � 1 uc l>51zP_ccLvAM Phone: ZCo t - 49 Applicant E -Mail Address: d t cIc6;KLUAJNN 6azz &,,, Applicant Mailing Address: Z3Zu- F'J"'c"co S5aAj �Atti t Property Owner Name: t".111CAL L:T,-3ULvvA P�o> 1z �� 4 S Phone: LRaN -~ ?cot ��c n Property Owner Mailing Address: Z 3Z4- F1st-cs ' �Af1 1�1(uf Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) 'Z7 Z!r&L)— 11 ,0 [ D r 27- 0 12 - Type of Request: ❑ Rezoning ❑ Variance ❑ Subdivision Approval ❑ Code Amendment ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Wetlands Permit ❑ Critical Area Permit ❑ Lot Split ❑ Conditional Use Permit for PUD A Preliminary/Final Plat Approval ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑ Other I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents t inspect the above property during daylight hours. Signature o Applican Date a_k�" 5[eq Signature f Owne Date Signature of Owner (if more than one) Date Planning Application (modified 1/28/2014) Page 1 of 1 page 193 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55116 651.452.1B50 phone I 651 ri52.8940 fax wwwmaev ntiAiairditc rnm MENDOTA HEIGHTS PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: ® Dated original of all the materials checked must be submitted by the end of the business day the Monday before the first Tuesday of the month. ® If all original materials are 11 x 17 or smaller — only submit originals. • If materials are larger than 11 x 17, please provide 24 copies, folded to 8 Y2 x 11. ® Any drawing in color — must submit 24 copies. The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: Fee, as included in Fee Schedule (check payable to City of Mendota Heights) NOTE: Planning Application fees do not cover building permit fees, utilities, or other fees which may be required for you to complete your project. Completed Application Form (only original needs to be submitted). VC Letter of Intent. Abstract Listing of owners located within 350 feet of property. XProposed name of subdivision; names shall not duplicate or too closely resemble names of existing subdivisions. Location of boundary lines in relation to a known section, quarter section of quarter -quarter section lines comprising a legal description of the property. Names and addresses of the developer and the designer making the plat. " Scale of plat, not less than one (1) inch to one hundred (100) feet. Date and north -point. Existing Conditions: Boundary Line of proposed subdivision, clearly indicated and to a close degree of accuracy. Existing zoning classifications for land within and abutting the subdivision. General statement on the approximate acreage and dimensions of the lots. Preliminary Plat Request (modified 12/6/2013) Page 1 of 3 page 194 L Location, right-of-way width, and names of existing or platted streets, or other public ways, parks, and other public lands, permanent buildings and structures, easements and section and corporate lines within the plan and to a distance on hundred fifty (150) feet beyond shall also be indicated. j Boundary lines of adjoining unsubdivided or subdivided land, within one hundred fifty (150) feet, identified by name and ownership, including all contiguous land owned or controlled by the subdivider. Topographic data, including contours at vertical intervals of not more than two (2) feet. Watercourses, marshes, rock outcrops, power transmission lines, and other significant features shall also be shown. U.S.G.S. data shall be used for all topographic mapping where feasible. XAn accurate soil survey of the subdivision prepared by a qualified person. Proposed Design Features: Layout of proposed streets showing the right-of-way widths, centerline gradients, typical cross sections, and proposed names of streets. The name of any street heretofore used in the county or its environs shall not be used unless the proposed street is a logical extension of an already named street, in which event the same name shall be used. Street names shall conform to the master street name and numbering system as adopted. Locations and widths of proposed alleys and pedestrian ways. Layout, numbers and preliminary dimensions of lots and blocks. Minimum front and side street building setback lines. When lots are located on a curve, the width of the lot at the building setback line. Areas, other than streets, alleys, pedestrian ways and utility easements, intended to be dedicated or reserved for public use, including the size of such area or areas in acres. XSize of individual lot areas noted in square footage. Other Information: Statement of the proposed use of lots stating types of residential buildings with number or proposed dwelling units and type of business or industry, so as to reveal the effect of the development on traffic, fire hazards, and congestion of population. Provision for surface water disposal, drainage, and flood control. If any zoning changes are contemplated, the proposed zoning plan for the areas. Where the subdivider owns property adjacent to that which is being proposed for the subdivision, the Planning Commission shall require that the subdivider submit a sketch plan of the remainder of the property so as to show.the possible relationships between the proposed subdivision and the future subdivision. In any adjacent subdivisions. ,Where structures are to be placed on large lots (over 30,000 square feet), the preliminary plat shall indicate placement of structures so that lots may be further subdivided. Preliminary Plat Request (modified 1216/2013) Page 2 of 3 page 195 Potential re -subdivision and use of excessively deep (over 200 feet) lots shall be shown and the preliminary plat shall indicate placement of structures so that lots may be further subdivided. Plan for soil erosion and sediment control both during construction and after development. The plan shall include gradients of waterways, design of velocity and erosion control, measures, and landscaping of the erosion and sediment control system. A vegetation preservation and protection plan that shows those trees proposed to be removed, those to remain, the types and locations of trees and other vegetation that are to be planted. Such other information as may be requested by the Engineer, Surveyor, or Planning Commission. Preliminary Plat Request (modified 12/6/2013) Page 3 of 3 - - a U £ E £ 2 5 — M N Fl, ID (0V0i7 (700(7) � d_ 86 ON 1.VMHOIH AWU 3iV1S x ON �----- --- I Ln C) 0 0 CpNUON COURT eoiiaao za 0� O�N Z 0 UVl� v e Lo & s a z =p �w LLJ p0 roa a Q 0 0 ow I V— U7 o�� 1 wdc��z� s�az/ro/s — MP�sieaosz�erosz�a bbZ9-06B(ZS6) :%V1 6609069(Z56) �3NOHd ' ° ozsu ass N rood t 'I'll -- a'j 6L[L •ouI 'uoclon.ilsuoa pun?lso[g 313mcz ccss NH 111111-19 �ozI oosz M aoi o ?JOA3A?J(1S / Sa33NI0N3 / Sa3NNtlld S� Z33HS 3'7.LLL •3 u� `�pN •� sawed��- - - a U £ E £ 2 5 — M N Fl, ID (0V0i7 (700(7) � d_ 86 ON 1.VMHOIH AWU 3iV1S x ON �----- --- I Ln C) 0 0 CpNUON COURT eoiiaao za 0� O�N Z 0 UVl� v e Lo & s a z =p �w LLJ p0 roa a Q 0 0 ow I V— U7 o�� 1 wdc��z� s�az/ro/s — MP�sieaosz�erosz�a bbZ9-06B(ZS6) :%V1 6609069(Z56) �3NOHd ' ° ozsu ass N rood t 'I'll -- a'j 6L[L •ouI 'uoclon.ilsuoa pun?lso[g 313mcz ccss NH 111111-19 �ozI oosz M aoi o ?JOA3A?J(1S / Sa33NI0N3 / Sa3NNtlld S� Z33HS 3'7.LLL •3 6619-069(Z56) :%VJ 6609 069(Z56) 3NONd cccss NH 111111-19�ne �oz� �Nns zro aa � M oosz 6b ON kVMHDIH JINnUi 31tl18 CONDON COURT ^ LL Q �II F 4 W m 6 v Off , o F =g mmm Eli J] �o 7 � DODO a� E o gh h / p� �� ��>✓ Wd64:Z1 4lOZ/60/9 - MP'15960£Z\960£Z\'� °onI a 'jIQ[jJtl.I7 $IIU0 P QTl .IOrS 'J[ I$ $Q m sao>,3nans / Sa33NI0N3 / sa3NNdld IQOIJ.V➢�I2iO3NI 3,LIS � 4 w '3ll� `��IN '� sewer��- oz� purls zro aa � m oosz S?JOA3�?J(1S / Sa33NIJN3 / Sa3NNtlld � IQOIZ�IR2iO3HI 3J,IS � •�u� `�pN •� sawed- S}Ii� ((]VOB (xIoO) 6b ON kVMHDIH )INnUi 31tl1S CONDON COURT w ♦ F �` Q o 1 f Ld p r � IL Z 0 U w z w o 's w a z E E m m m (OVOU cxJOO) 6b ON kVMHDIH )lNnui 31tl1S — — CONDON COURT aaoxa w Q i 1 CD ♦\ X w WdB I'1t SIOZ/60/9 — MP'30VNIV Q-15960£Z\960£Z\:l 6619-06B(Z56) �%VJ 6609-06B(Z56) �3NONd N i d 11 i.s 3,N �OuI 'uoc�ons�}suoa,puntxso[g �oIQ cc£ss NH W9 -069(Z96) XVJ W9 -069(Z96) 3NOHd am Nry --a 'On ems 'zro as uD M oosz oZet-OZ199 'mod 'is 'anp rl o�a�j aE cul 'uoi}onJ}suoO uniKaoigoiQ g r I� `)NiLtSIX''3/ISAzifIS '3, � SdOA3AdflS / S833NION3 / Sd3NNVld 'Ou IN sauce � I � r SNOIZI(iNOO .do voidLL2i'3J SXVO 3SHi ry a E w eR'3 8 6 j E v E$ F 7 �a E a 5 �11 F ; 5 � ❑ _ y � E� a�a g m � a E w eR'3 8 6 j E v E$ F 7 �a E a 5 �11 F c ; 5 � ❑ _ y � E� 9 a E 5 hm s oa F�gs. B n xxzxaLx z x 6 a w w aE X00 8b 'ON A`dMFfJIH )IN(lkil. 31VJ.S- _ zio s I Ela9 g�oz5✓a» x:< a: >I �C'r .x xv. 'G�y° �` 't� �� ���� s - � x ae v or 906 o" -.i 'v'vu/n PJ S c h 9 1 ! 3.M...N 004LZ 3, L 04091 'ia33a kt _� l4Zry q0 oxabo aX96 J' 9ry ,� n � ) p »yy°�e9' ��-.\ ^ /�✓L� ti, ��i _ ! r09o- �` n/�% - �•_.x.�% moi\ i ✓ /ill J - �_n Wtl9b 44 S40Z b0 9 - PJX39b0£Z 940£Z =j w �,=ss oto ti3 A` z:- z=- o z , 9-11 -� E P c k m 3 �s mg ° age 'p' z � €n. ®6' 'ON kVMHDIH )INnHI E LV18 — - - - — I I I I I I I 1 1 k s� — — _ a 3 I I I w B.I ,h y'xE `�' S� I z I 0 I I I o ? a I pl' Lt I JJ A rmo R' R �� d �I mW ° < WVSS'Ll 5�OL 40 9 - MP dd9bOfZ 9b0[Z '� 44Ls-o6P(ZSs) xtll boos-osP(ZSs) 3NOHd l oz lsS NW moa is 'aM�S auol5 Pla!J bZ£Z Lrrss NM —'s'ozl guns zb aa ,1� .M aosz 'ouI 'uot�}ona}suoQ punlxaoCg xoiQ S2JOA3A21f1S / Sb33N19N3 / S213NNtlld � ,LH'Id .C2IVDIIY�II'I'32Id •�u '111H sauce � D13" o—a— 'b (' tlf sx�o" o� - CHs w �,=ss oto ti3 A` z:- z=- o z , 9-11 -� E P c k m 3 �s mg ° age 'p' z � €n. ®6' 'ON kVMHDIH )INnHI E LV18 — - - - — I I I I I I I 1 1 k s� — — _ a 3 I I I w B.I ,h y'xE `�' S� I z I 0 I I I o ? a I pl' Lt I JJ A rmo R' R �� d �I mW ° < WVSS'Ll 5�OL 40 9 - MP dd9bOfZ 9b0[Z '� 44Ls-o6P(ZSs) xtll boos-osP(ZSs) 3NOHd l oz lsS NW moa is 'aM�S auol5 Pla!J bZ£Z Lrrss NM —'s'ozl guns zb aa ,1� .M aosz 'ouI 'uot�}ona}suoQ punlxaoCg xoiQ S2JOA3A21f1S / Sb33N19N3 / S213NNtlld � ,LH'Id .C2IVDIIY�II'I'32Id •�u '111H sauce � D13" o—a— VVZ9-062(Z96:KVJ 6609-068(ZS6 3N9NdNW 'on - 'nod 15 auo pla�j -oul suo� anpunj�ao g 31ola m o cress NH minm"ne luns zeaa M oosz Sa0A]MnS / Sd33N10N3 / Sa3NN" NVICI riogiRoo INHWIa3S NOIS02I� �JVNIY2Ia omavllo AavmlNrlaUd w 'cul IN 'b sawed P w a P NNIW " V10QN3W sxvo" alll w - 0 U (OVOW WOO) 6b 'ON AVMHOIH )IMLL 31V1S y � e �z o do:xo®�uo® 000 D = I I (avom acm) — - - _ 6b 'ON kVMHJIH )MILL 31V1S I I , I I foo ww -'�w-, W,-`—'- I I I NOI1 I wCOM /y I W9 -062(S96) XVJ "09 062(S96) 1NOHd �,lev IM9 NH �IIIINIIG 0Z1 lllINS3Z 'y "' OO' (Erg �_,,, " , ", � .11-1— N. 11-1 �l -oul luollonalmoo puni14'd xm 0 I �i .1 �, �- 6 I 61, ­�� _�711� SN04dAS / S�33NIO � .IN�111'1 h 1IN111 _ I. _ ,�)_, , _,�, s,iiviaa ,ioaimoo maxiaas )? moisozia I �� Ri I . �, --. I a: �- " ,� �� ,_ � I , ., - � I Ml li'll!H 'H sewer JIM) _ , - ,��,­,..­,=z ,,,,� ,z�,,.,:,-. 2,�,,= l- ­ -1 lIll­­­ VIOSINNIN SIHOaH VIOSNIN SXVO alll � I . .-a �. , . , � , � � - - � I � n - � � : , , , i i . a . 2 2 , I i � � . � � , a'8 ; ,�, �i - aa ------- - 2 1. V - — �_ 2 5 � i - .8 gt 6 ,� -, ,. ,. o . � i � I ! - , .t 10 � � � . . , . - , , ��! , - ! � . � . . � . _ , . � . � . i I I ,:. 2 2 � , � ! i � _, -. � -2 � � a', -,,0� ., ,. , 0 - , � I - - - � -. � a � � � ? i - 8 . � � � . f OL t I , � - � . . I � � - . � z 1M � '. " ,I , , I � 0 � Mm . � E o - 1 i 2 - . I 0 . , � � I - � - - , z - - � � � - 8 - - - ., � . - 0 -, ! _ i ! � � - . , . . � � 0 i 0 -, ! -, i 1. . � I w I . 2 0 � � I . - - � . a Z � - . , v - . �. � � � j � � - I � I I . s ' , � 0 �3 �, t a � - � - � - � I � � . - E - I - , o � b I . : , I 9 , � � 0 . - . � 0 8 - - i i - I g =. , � 2 40 0 ! � . � � 2 8 � 2 , � , , , � spa - . , . . . ; I , a I o z . � . � � - - ! : a 0 . - - - - - E . 0 � � 0 . - - ppm" i 0 a I . z I , i - � � - , : . , � . -. � - t . . � ! � . R . I � � 0 - a . I � . � , ! ,I J t � a 0 s � . g . � . I - a � , 2 z 6 - 26 � z i � . � . � . I I � 0 . . I : I : , . 0 ; _ 4 .E 2 ' a E , , 2 �2 . 1 1 -, ; , � , _ � � _ - 2 2 i _ , - . . . , - o � . . , , 2 , , � , , - 0 E � � 6 - t � , -0 , 4 - t2 M - � o �i ;, : - 2 , I : � - E � . . ! � � 0 0 � � , , - o o o ! i - I 0 � t - - t , ! � - - - � 0 . . . - - - I - ! 8 - _ , 3 . � __ _. - �� a _- � ' _' E _. � � . . - I - , - " - � - , _- ' - , - 2 2 � �2 - � - ' ' � " � - - . - - - � -0 � I i 12 - , -0 . � � . � ! -- , -, � � -> - " E � 0 . � ; - " , . 0 o , . - . > 0 - 0 0 - 0 - : � - � 0 - � -2 - � -, ! 8 a _- . - 8 : . 0 � . ' E , - � ' � Z 8 � o . : 2 - 2 , , . � > . 2 ' - � , - 0 � , , � a zo - i � - � - a , 0 I I 0 . � � � - � Z 2 � - _' � - ' a � � ' - E . � � - E . . 0 . . _ ' - . , . , - - , � . I _ , . j . � i j . � - � ' a ! - - � . . . 8 � ; 0 - ' - 4 a � � . � � 0 2 � I t - � - - - - . - i - � i , I _ . . � - ' - - - � ! ' i � 0 1 � 0 1 - - - - E � . . I � - E - ! 1 2 2 1 . : , _ . . . . � . . � I i - og � , . - 2 � ' - �3 - - - a . . . a � . . - � -. a t - 8 , � �. t � 0 � � . E � . � - - - -0 ' E 2 0 , . > � - ' . 0 . . 0 . . . � . . - - , a , - 0 E - � . 8 0 . . 0 � 0 - - - - 0 . t , . i , , . - � I , - , , � a ! 0 , - ' - . Z 2 � � 0 0 � 0 - 8 � : E E . . � . . . 4 , � � - 0 , - . . � 2 ;I . . 0 E E . , . . . � - " . p - _W E � - . - i , 0 � � - - : � 0 . - - . a .E � 3 a � � . , , , , , : - ; ' . 2 � _ � _ � 2 � 0 � . . 8 g � 2 , ; 8 2 1 _ . . , a . . . , � . . a E I � 0 W , z . . . 0 ' ' 8 ' 8 � - . � > ' . � . t a a � E I � c : . 0 - - - �' I - U . . - - - � , � U - E - � . . � 0 a , . , - . � E � p . . , , � - . i 8 - a � � , � . � 2 , = . _ E - _ � ' 0 - _ � : � 8 . � . � - � � � - � . � . . 0 � . U , . U . - , - � . � . � I , � . . 0 0 � , SI I 0 0 - > E , � 0 - : - �, � S _ . . . . x.2 . - - I I . . . 4 I . . - I I � - - � - - - �, .. � , _ ; 2 _, -, - � � � 2 - - !� . E - � - t o - a ' ' t ' 2 _ I 0 0 � S 0 � - I I - - _ . _ , 8 . , . � � , a I _5 - ` 4 ` ' ' ' _ ' ' 0 - - - 1 4 � . . a ' . - , , , _ , o - , , � E � M E I3 ' - . i m - a 0 m - a 2 $I0 � t � � � � � 3 � � t �E � � � . I � � - . . , . . a � I 0 � 8 � � - 3 - - - � , - . - , � � o , 0 . , . � . 4 . � - - . � I I - � a 8 8 . I 1 2 a � 0 , 4 - - � t I > 7 t - - � � 2 E ' ' . � . . a . . a . . . a � � . . � E - , . 1 2 E - a 0 . 7 E E - . . E , , 0 b . . E a - . � a , - � , - - ' - I � - 0 . . . 0 . � � � 4 1 � a 2 � . 0 - - , 0 0 - � E. - - � .E . � , _ - 4 0 . u E . ' � E . � � a � I - . _ . _ . 0 � I a - , � E E � . � � . , - . 0 - I . , . I � � R - - � , � � � 2 � , � � 2 . 2 . � - - - � , 4 . I - t . , 5 � � I � . . � � - - - . - - , . � � 2- � � - � - 2 . . r � � � - a 5 , � �, � I � - - , - I I . � - T � � . , � � . � � � � � , z � s � -, � - � t � � � -. . , � � z � � . I - . . I � n � � 2 � 8 � � � - � � � � . - 2 - , � � 3 . - � � � . - � � � � � . . . I � a , � � � . - . . , . _. S - I - T - � . I � I ; � -. � 5 � . � I � . , , � " � -1 I � � � . . -� - -1 � - i � - � 4- � � I � � � . � j � o — - - , � � I- . . � � .- �� -. , t � � . - � A , � t � � _. � s � . � � � � a - .4 a � � . � � � _. . � � I � a - � . . . - � , 2 � - - 1 � a , , � � , � � � � , a @ � � I p ,� 2 E � 5 , _� ! � � I - - �. p � - . 4 � - , � 5 , _. � T � - - , t . 5 , ­ . . . � � � � � � - � - -� , � , � I . H I 1 2 � � � , � - - � - � 5 -, ` � . , � � � ." � , � E � _. ­ . I � - t � _. . . � - . � . � . - � i . I - � � , I � � It � ­ I � � � , �, � � M_ - � E . � . � � . � z I � � - - , I . 1, - I I - I E � . I I � . - . � .- � - - . 3 . . - � _. - � . - 1 - , , � � � . - i , g i - � � � � � - . � . � � - I , . � P - � � & I i � a . - , - at � � , ; I - I � � 6 � -, � . � � 5 � , - - � - P . , - � , - � I � � � a � j L�, I ,,, � . � � � ; � 2 - , � � � , � I � , . , � � 2 1 ,pi 5 - , � 5 , � , ; � � A � - � � Nv � i i � , -, - E - � - � � � � g E . , � I �­ � Z t � Ir I � - � , 5 � .— � � � - � � , 0 � a B � 2 � . � , � � s � � � - � - ffi , , � � - � � . � -� c � ; T � " � 5 , - � , � � ! i � , , , f � � g , , , , - � � � z - � s ,. " � � , - , - _. � � , � - � , u � � 0 E � . - - - , , . � � � , , , � , � , -, , � 2 � . � � t � � � � � � � , _� � � E . � � � z � - P � � ffi � - ; , , , ; � -- 4 - , . , , , t ; � t � � � , � - 2 9 g � E - ; - , 2 � - E - � 0 � T I - , - M2 ! �- � . � � � , - i , - f � � - p � � � - t 7 - , � � I - , � i - � � � � � � 2 , - , . � � , , s 2 , � - � i 5 � � � � � � � 67 � E � � � � , � t . v - � 5 , � , � - � � , - � E T 5 T 5 � � . � 5 � 5 � s � i � � a � - - � m � � � - � - � . � Z ffi , I � � , ; � 2 � , � - � � � - � ,� � � 8 o � � � 2 � E , . � � , t , � ,- _- - - , 6 t � I - a , � , . - 2 i � R 1, L - - � -, � - � 6 � � � � -. , - - � , � � � . � , � I � � � , - I - I - - , 8 � , � J . 2 � , � � � 5 � , I - � � � " - e � , , - , I � i � � � � � � - � � � 2 ffi � I � . P � � 2 s E t 2 � I , � I I , , , 4 , 2 , I , � a . � I I . . , . � I � 5 , � 4 , � , � � - � � I � , . - I I � n � - � - I t- , E - I � I - - - - � � � .� � 3 I � - � a � I s i � 2 � � I - . _. � 2 � � � 4 � . , � � � � � I . , ,a � � .1 � � 5 � . s - - . � � a - . � - � ; . . . � 2 s - - . " . . , . � � . s � . I � � , _ � . � _1 , � .1 , E I . � � ' 2 . . - � N E I . I � E � � � , _ _ _ _ _ _ � E � - � - 2 E . . . ' - ' � S ' ' b . _ _ _ . _ . _ � � - 9 � � - � . � - 6 -" ' - I � I , � � . � � � � � - � . . . � � E � I � E � " , _ E - - - � t � � � - - a I - I � � . o t - __ � � 5 E � � , � , � � � � _. _. � . _. � � _ , � I � P � � � � , . � � 9 � � ' . ' - " " _ � � � , , . . � . � - - , - , � , , - . � , � � . � ! . - . _ ; 2 - � -- -- � - - 2 � - - 2 � i � -. - � � � � s , -, , � - , � .. - - s -. � � . . I _ . - a � . ,- � , I � t � 2 . . � - � -2 � , � - - � � - �E _ � - . i , � . � s -, � � L 6 � � � - . � . . . � � 2 � � � , , - . � , ", - � � . 1. o � � I ' , '� - _. ' . 5 4 - 1 - i . a A 11 � , I - - . I . . , , � I t - ' - - . . . � . � � � - - � - 1 _. .. - � � . - - � , - � � i - � - I . � I 4 � I � � - - , , � � , - - � � , � 6, � - I - . � � � , . Z � i . , �. - - , � � , s� . � 6 � . - . � , - � � f � ! � - - � E - . . - I I - � � � � � � - . � . , _ � , , - - o " � , � 5 � � I � � - - . - _. tI a � - .. a ; , � � , � N - - - . Ia � 6 v 2 � ' i- � . � a t , - � � - � N � � � . , � - - - � � � - � , � � t 6 5 - I � � , - c � � � 2 2 � � ' � - - P - � e � , � - , ' � 5 ' - � t - ,b , _. 4 � . T � L � , � -- � I � 6, E , E � � '� � _ -� � � � � 6 E . _' - - � - , - , . 4 � - � - - 6 - - 1, , �f . I , � � " � � , , -, ­ , D , � 6 _ - - - � � � s - � ! - : � az � , � L ' ' 2 ­ � I � � � - � - � ' ' -' ' I , , � � , � , 1 � ' , - � 5 2 g - 6 � , . � � � E 7 � 2 � � , - � p . . . , - E � 2 � , -. 2 - i p . t E � � . - � , � _ . . _ _ _ _ . . , � ; � ' ' ' ' � ' � s � E I � a - � � , � a - , � g 2 � . - -' - E � � E � � � i . . � . E , � t � . t � ; � - - , , , - - E � � � � E E , - - - � �. � I � . I � � E � 5 , � � . � � � � � . E � � � � - , E - - . - - . � 1 . , � . t ; . � � � . - , _ � � � � Z � � - . . A H; � - _- _- � _- - . � � , � � � , , � � � - - � � 2 , � - - � - � . . � , t r � � I � � V � � I , , , t � � � - � � � � � � - - � , � , � 2 2 . . � � , � _ t � t 2fl � � � �, -- - - � - - E E � ,- � � � . 5 3 � - � � , � � , � 5 g � � � 4 - � � � � � � � � 2 , �, � 2 , , - � 1 � � i � � 4 � � . - E - � J ' ` � t " �' I E� ffi 't � _. � � - - .- - � . - J � , � � � � s , � , � � . � � � - c s -, . E - a � � � � � 1 2 � - � � , i , � . � � � , , � � , � , o . � � , � , � � � � 17 ff � - � � � � � s , . � � , p " , � � E � . � I . � S � Q 1 ' � . a � � t � E � - t, � � H - , � 3 ffi fE � a . E- �- � I ' � � � � - � ` ,. o - � � � t% � � - � �� - �� �, � a 5 � � , - � � B � � , 2 �, E�' � ' B � � � E � � 2 � � � � . _ , � , _ _ � . � - - I , , M , , S - - � - - 2 - t � � , � ­ 3 ­ ­ � . � � p � E i I � � �-. t I t . I 8 � � I I , � 8 � P - � . , , , . . � , , , I , - � i � � a " E . . � , � , � . . I ,I I � . I - . . � . � � . - � , � , . , � , , � � . � I � � � � , � I � � I m � - E . - , -, , , � , - - . - ' � ' ' - - � - - ; 2- i �� 11 - a b- � , E _- . __ . � . ! � - . � . . . A � � , - - , - � � . , � � � - � . , . 2 E _ . � - . � I - � � - A � � I � , � d E _. � - -1 - a - - E' I E , . � � . 5 � � � P ,E - � - - - � , , � 2 2 . -6 - i . � �_ � � . 1 - , p � � � I � - E � � � � , I � . � � � , , . � 2 � I � 6 g K .p ! - i � � -, � - , � E � E - � � , - ' ' ' ' a � , - , - -9 � , - -, - -" ` , � - j � � � z I � � � � �U � 2 -' t � _E t � j . � , - i � , - . � � , ' - - , � - � � ! � I I 3 . - ' .- - ' � , T - I t . _ .. � o - i � . , � , � � , � . . . , a S � � , � � � � , , , � 5 . � , , , - , - ' ' ' ' ' � ' , . � � � � , - � � . I ff - � E . 8 . . . , 2 � . � , �� � e � � - a . � - � , - . � � ' E � I - . - - - - - T 1 i E , . � � . � . _ � 2 . � I - - � - - E - a � � � � � � p � � - � E - - � � � - , 5 i � 6 � , � � . , T I . - . . . � 8 � � , � p � � I - � � , - - 2 � , - - � 2 - , t, a - - - - . � - � ­ -1 i 5 � , � � a . : , � . . � - � . � . - -1 � � 5 � . I 6 y . � . � . � _� � � � � I � 1 � -, � 5 2 � � �E . � . � . � � � 2 � F � - 5 � ' � � E � , ! - - � � 2 E � I � � . � , � B � - . � , 2 - t � - � 6 m � - � � - � � � - � 4 i � � E I N - � � . . I E . � � � � E - , � 8 �, � E � -� � � � - � ' , , . . , . . � j " I ! 6 ; � i � � � � � 2 2 ' 1 � � - . � , . � � . � � . . � n . 1 � - -2 � 3 , � , -, , , ! t ff � I I t � o � - E E 2 . . . � a - - - - - . . � . _. � , � � - � � P � � � t - - - . � � p , � L . � " � - , , , , � - - , � , . � � . � , P � - � h � , � � 0 t , � � . � . , , a � � , � E' I � -- - � . . a . . , � � I � I � � �2 � . . � - - I . � , � - � , � �, � E � ' ' ' � - - � F � � � � � 6 � � � � .0 - . � __ � �l � � - � - � m t � � - � � � ,- , , , , , � , ,-�. ! -, -- -. ", � � , � � - � - - , � � � -. - , � 5 . � � I � - - 5 I � ' ­ I � , . � !� � � � � E ff , � " , ", � � 6 � , , , � - � - � � � Oc � E E � � � - t L , f E E -:. � _ - E a � � - � O , �l .— H -. �� , z . � , , . , , - E � . i i t � - _.- " 5 - � 4 - I . � T tI I � � - � , , a i � � � � � �� , � I . , � � 4 � v E - � - , � � � � � � � T , � 4 , � 5 E , � Z � � � - � 4 , , � , 8 � � - � ; � - _ . � � . � E 0 , . I � , . 5 , � � . - . � � � � � , . I I � � H � � M - - -E � - ­ , � � - - � , 6 � - , � I . � � � � I ffi I I � � � � � , � � I � I . , , � , i � � , � � � bbZ9-069(Z96) :%V1 6609 069(Z56) 3NONd �OzI �aa ozb< <sS N rood t � - iaij bZCZ oul Vollonilsuo��punlKao[g 310M m r a = w cccss NH m�ns�ne purls ze � M oosz(rmAh Sao 3`anS / Sa33N19N3 / Sa3NNtlld NV'Id 3dVOSQNVI/NOLLVA2I3Mid NOILVIaDaA kHVNIHrIaZld I IN 'a SOWBP `sx�0 alll (GvObl aGOM eb 'aV kvmHc)(H )tonal 31vis I CO DoT NDON ! 1 CO a 3 I JX3 °;a A page 205 _ ot```'"ZIS& Minnesota Department of Transportation D -John Ireland Boulevard F y�� Saint Paul, MN 55155 SOP V May 19, 2015 Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested Dick Bjorklund Dick Bjorklund Properties, LLC 2324 Field Stone Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55118 In reply refer to: C.S. 1917(149=1)901 Parcel 7 Dakota County Conveyance No. 2015-0011 Dear Mr. Dick Bjorklund, We are pleased to inform you that conditional approval has been obtained for the conveyance of the above -referenced 3,366 square feet area, more or less (the "Property"). The State hereby offers to convey the Property for a consideration of $3,700.00 subject to: 1. Any existing or pending taxes, assessments and/or penalties will be paid by the buyer. 2. The rights of existing utilities, if any, as provided in Minnesota Statutes §161.45 Subdivision 3. 3. Any access control shown on the attached map and set forth in the attached legal description. 4. The grantee accepting the Property and improvements, if any in "as -is" "where -is" condition. 5. The deed from the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation in substantially the form attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. 6. Payment is to be made in the form of a cashier's check, certified check or money order made payable to "Commissioner of Transportation — Trunk Highway Fund" in the amount of $2,700.00 ($3,700.00 less the $1,000.00 already paid). 7. This offer is subject to and specifically conditioned upon receipt of the above- mentioned consideration on or before July 18, 2015. If such consideration is not received on or before that date, this offer is null and void and of no further force Conveyance Offer Lefler - Indemnfty RC1019 5/19/2015 s Dick Bjorklund May 19, 22015 Page 2 page 206 and effect; and the State is released from any further obligation to you and may negotiate with other parties for sale or other disposition of the Property. 8. Upon receipt of payment for the conveyance the State will issue a signed quitclaim deed to: Dick Bjorklund Properties, LLC. Please submit any questions you may have regarding this transaction to: Keith Jellinger, at: 651-366-3497. Mail payment to the following address: Minnesota Department of Transportation 395 John Ireland Blvd. St. Paul, ISN 55155 Attn: Keith Jellinger, MS 632 Sincerely, Bry J. odds it ctor ice of Land agement Enclosures: Exhibit Unsigned Quitclaim Deed (for review purposes only) Conveyance Offer Letter - Indemnity RC1019 5/19/2015 page 207 QUITCLAIM DEED EASEMENT C.S. 1917 (49=1) 901 Parcel 7 County of Dakota REALMS No. 2015-0011 The State of Minnesota having heretofore acquired an easement for trunk highway purposes on the real estate hereinafter described, and the Commissioner of Transportation of said State having determined that the same is no longer needed; Now, therefore, upon said determination and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 161 A3, the State of Minnesota, by Charles -A. Zelle, its Commissioner of Transportation, Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Three Thousand Seven Hundred and No/100 Dollars ($3,700.00) paid to the State for deposit in the trunk highway fund, does hereby release, quitclaim and convey to the present fee owner, Dick Bjorklund Properties, LLC, a limited liability company under the laws of the state of Minnesota, Grantee, all its interest in and to the real estate in Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: That part of Tract A described below: Tract A. That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 28 North, Range 23 West, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the southerly line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 35, with the center line of Trunk Highway No. 88 (now known as Trunk Highway No. 149) as used and existing prior to November 30, 1950; thence West along said southerly line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 450 feet; thence North for a distance of 1092 feet to the point of beginning of Tract A to be described; thence North for a distance of 273 feet; thence East and parallel with said southerly line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 301.8 feet, more or less, to the center line of said Trunk Highway No. 88; thence southerly along the centerline of said Highway for a distance of 273.3 feet, more or less; thence West and parallel with said southerly line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 295.3 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning; which lies easterly of the westerly right of way line of Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 19-53 as the same is on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for said County, and northerly, westerly,, and southerly of Line 1 described below; Page 1 of 2 page 208 Line 1. Commencing at Right of Way Boundary Corner B7 as shown on said Plat Numbered 19-53; thence westerly on an azimuth of 275 degrees 26 minutes 38 seconds along the boundary of said plat for 12.50 feet to Right of Way Boundary Comer 138; thence northerly for 190.29 feet along the boundary of said plat on a non-tangential curve, concave to the east, having a radius of 3994.72 feet, a delta angle of 02 degrees 43 minutes 46 seconds and a chord azimuth of 06 degrees 48 minutes 30 seconds to the point of beginning of Line 1 to be described; thence on an azimuth of 89 degrees 49 minutes 44 seconds for 30.32 feet; thence northerly for 109.57 feet on a non-tangential curve, concave to the east, having a radius of 3964.72 feet, a delta angle of 01 degrees 35 minutes 00 seconds and a chord azimuth of 09 degrees 01 minutes 42 seconds; thence on an azimuth of 279 degrees 49 minutes 12 seconds for 30.00 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B9 as shown on said Plat No. 19- 53 and. there terminating; containing 3366 square feet, more or less. THE ABOVE DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO THE RIGHTS OF EXISTING UTILITIES, IF ANY, AS PROVIDED IN MINNESOTA STATUTES §161.45 SUBDIVISION 3. Dated this day of STATE OF MINNESOTA By (Commissioner of Transportation) (Director of the Office of Land Management) (Assistant Director of the Office of Land Management) Seal of the Commissioner of Transportation STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) On this day of , before me, a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared , to me personally known to be the person who executed the foregoing instrument and who did say that he is the (Commissioner of Transportation) (Director of the Office of Land Management and duly authorized agent of the Commissioner of Transportation) (Assistant Director of the Office of Land Management and duly authorized agent of the Commissioner of Transportation) of the State of Minnesota and acknowledged that he executed the foregoing instrument and caused the seal of the Commissioner of Transportation to be affixed thereto, by authority of Minnesota Statutes, Section 161.43, and as the free act and deed of said State. This instrument was drafted by the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, Legal and Property Management Unit, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 R86489G.doc Page 2 of 2 Print Preview Planning Case 2015-20 Public Hearing Notice Mailing List Page 1 of 1 page 210 27I] 3500800 21 2535 CONDON CT 270350080030 STATE CFF MM - DOTCONDON COURT EXCHANGE LLC 27035008002.2 270350081010 2525 CORDON CT a VISUATION MONASTERY DICK B30RKLUND PROPERTIES LLC 270350080010 c 2551 CONDON CT 270350078010 DICK B30RKLUND PROPERTIES LLC VISITATION MONASTERY Disclaimer: Map and parse data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is notguararateedv This is not a legal Map Scale document and should rrot be substituted Far a title search appraisal survey, or For zoning verification_ Dakota County 1 inch = 165 feet assumes no legal responsibi0ity for the information contained in this data. 5#2015 http://gis.co. dakota.mn.uslDCGISIWebFonnsIPrint.aspx?img=http:Hgis.co.dakota.mn.us/Co... 6/2/2015 page 211 Affidavit ®f Publication State of Minnesota l SS County of Dakota e} E. KITTY SUNDBERG being duly sworn, on oath, says that he/she is the publisher or authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as SOUTH-WEST REVIEW and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: (A) The, newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. (B) The printed NOTICE OF HEARING which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week, for 1 successive weeks; it was first published on SUNDAY , the 7 TH day of JUNE 2015 , and was thereafter printed and published on every to and including , the day of , 20 ; and printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition and publication of the notice: AB L U W XYZ CDEFGHIJK MNOPQRST V *ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ *abcd efg hij klm nopq rstuvwxyz Subscribed and sworn to before me on TH this$ day of JUNE 2015 J2 11 q Notary Public *Alphabet should be in the same size and kind of type as the notice. 1:011=t R. WHITEHEAD Public -Minnesota RATE INFORMATION on Fires Jen 91, 2020 (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space ...................................... B �'/ - I► TITLE LEGAL • • . • (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter (3) Rate actually charged for the above matter 1/15 ..............$25.00 per col. inch ...............................$25.00 per col. inch ...............................$ per col. inch page 212 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING' A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PRELIMINARYPLATAT 2511 &'2525 CONDOM COURT= TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN• '- •NOTICE -is hereby'giveh that the Planning ;Commission of Mendota Heights will meet at: 7:00 "P..M:, or as soon as possible thereafter. 1 at 2511 & 2525 This request has d Planning Case pursuant to Title 11 request will,be heard at this meeting.` Lorri Smith City Clerk (South-West Review: June 7,.2015) page 213 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota 9C , 651.452.1850 phone ! 651.4; az www.mendota•heights.con T mCITY OF MENDDTA HEIGHTS DATE: July 7, 2015 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Lot Split and Variance at 650 North Freeway Road BACKGROUND The applicant, on behalf of the property owner, is seeking approval to subdivide the subject parcel located at 650 North Freeway Road. A variance is required to disturb slopes greater than 25% as part of grading and construction activities for a new single-family dwelling. The subject parcel contains an existing single-family dwelling with attached garage. If the requests are approved, the existing home would remain and a new attached garage would be constructed, as well as a new single-family home on the easterly parcel. Both proposed parcels, the existing dwelling, and proposed garage addition meet the applicable R -I District standards. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at the June 23 meeting. Neighboring property owners commented on the potential changes to the character of the neighborhood and drainage as a result of new construction. BUDGETIMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended approval of the lot split and variance requests, with conditions, as described in Planning Case 2015-23. If the City Council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion adopting RESOLUTION 2015-50 APPROVING A LOT SPLIT AND VARIANCE AT 650 NORTH FREEWAY ROAD. This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 214 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, NHNNESOTA RESOLUTION 2015-50 RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT SPLIT AND VARIANCE AT 650 NORTH FREEWAY ROAD WHEREAS, Sean Doyle, on behalf of John Karas, has applied for a lot split and variance at 2511 and 2525 Condon Court as proposed in Planning Case 2015-23 and described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting on June 23, 2015. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the lot split and variance requests as proposed in Planning Case 2015-23 are hereby approved based on the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed subdivision request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed garage addition to the existing dwelling addresses the nonconformity caused by the proposed subdivision request and subsequent construction of a new single-family home. 3. The impacted slopes over 25% appear to be man-made as part of construction and reinforcement of the existing driveway. 4. The impacted slopes over 25% are less than the current 33% maximum industry standard for constructed slopes and comprise only 5.3% of the subject parcel. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the lot split and variance requests as proposed in Planning Case 2015-23 are hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. The existing driveway serving the attached garage is removed, and a building permit is approved and certificate of occupancy issued for the proposed garage on Parcel A, prior to the subdivision being recorded by Dakota County. 2. Park dedication fee in the amount of $2,700, in lieu of land, is collected after City Council approval and before being recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits by the City. 3. Street reconstruction assessment fee in the amount of $3,700, as part of North Freeway Road Project 2002-02, is collected after City Council approval and before being recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits by the City. 4. The applicant shall dedicate the following drainage and utility easements on both parcels to be denoted on the Certificate of Survey submitted to Dakota County: 10 -foot wide along the front property lines and 5 -foot wide along the side and rear property lines. 5. Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with associated easements, subject to review and approval by the City Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 7. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City's Land Disturbance Guidance Document. page 215 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this seventh day of July, 2015. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST: Lorri Smith, City Clerk Res 2015-50 page 2 page 216 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com , T mCITY OF MENDDTA HEIGHTS DATE: June 23, 2015 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2015-23 Subdivision Request for Lot Split and Variance APPLICANT: Sean Doyle, S.D. Custom Homes/John Karas PROPERTY ADDRESS: 650 North Freeway Road ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One -Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: September 2, 2015 (extended to 120 days) DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, on behalf of the property owner, is seeking approval to subdivide the subject parcel located at 650 North Freeway Road. The request requires City Council approval before being recorded with Dakota County. In addition, a variance is required to disturb slopes greater than 25% as part of grading and construction activities for a new single-family dwelling. BACKGROUND The subject parcel is approximately 1.15 acres (50,094 square feet) and contains an existing single-family residential dwelling and attached, side -loaded garage (see attached aerial site map). The parcel is zoned R-1 One -Family Residential and is guided for low density residential development. If the requests are approved, a garage addition would be constructed on the existing dwelling and a new single-family dwelling would be constructed within the proposed building pad on the easterly parcel, as shown in Exhibit A. ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan The subject parcel is guided LR, Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant's request to subdivide the subject parcel into two parcels, consisting of approximately 0.57 acres each, is consistent with the LR maximum density of 2.9 units per acre. Furthermore, the proposed addition to the existing dwelling and construction of a new single-family dwelling are consistent with continued use of both parcels as low density residential uses. Lot Split Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district. page 217 R-1 District Standards As shown in the table below, both proposed parcels, the existing dwelling, and proposed garage addition meet the applicable R-1 District standards: Source: Exhibits A & B Exhibit A includes the required setbacks for the principal structures on both parcels; actual compliance for the proposed garage addition on Parcel A and the new dwelling on Parcel B will be verified upon submission of building permit applications based on the proposed structure designs. Proposed Garage Addition The existing driveway accessing the attached garage on Parcel A would be removed as part of the proposed grading and construction for the new dwelling on Parcel B. Since the existing garage will be inaccessible without traversing Parcel B, a nonconformity would be created. In order to address this issue, the property owner is proposing to construct a garage addition on the front of the existing dwelling. Therefore, a condition requiring building permit approval and certificate of occupancy issuance for the proposed garage prior to recording the subdivision should be included in a recommendation of approval in this case. According to Title 12 -1D -4-D(2) of the City Code: Whenever buildings have been built on one side of the street between two (2) intersections, no building shall hereafter be erected to extend closer toward the street than the average of the required district setback and average setback of the adjoining principal structures. As shown on Exhibit A, the proposed side -loaded garage meets the required 72.2 -foot front yard setback based on the setbacks for the adjacent dwellings at 660 North Freeway Road and 1937 South Lane. Variance According to Title 11-3-8-A of the City Code: Slope Limitations: Subdivision design shall be consistent with limitations presented by steep slopes. Subdivisions shall be designed so that no construction or grading will be conducted on slopes steeper than twenty five percent (2501o) in grade. The natural topography and bluffs in Mendota Heights are certainly an amenity worth preserving, which is mostly likely the intent of this standard. As shown on Exhibit B, Parcel B contains slopes greater than 25% within the proposed building pad area that would be disturbed by construction and grading for the new dwelling; therefore a variance is required to approve the lot split request in this case. Standard Required Parcel A Parcel B Lot Area 15,000 sq. ft. 15,000 sq. ft. 25,000 sq. ft. 25,000 sq. ft. Lot Width 100 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft. Front Yard 30 ft. or [(A+B/2)+30)/2] 722 ft. (Parcel A) 73.7 ft. 102 ft. 67.2 ft. (Parcel B) 10 ft. on each side or '/z the height of the structure 10 ft. (Parcel A) 29 ft. (west) 25 ft. (west) Side Yard contiguous to the side yard, 10-15 ft. (Parcel B) 10.3 ft. (east) 15 ft. (east) whichever is greater, to a maximum of 15 ft. Rear Yard 30 ft. or 20% of the average lot 50 ft. 114 ft. 100 ft. depth, whichever is greater Source: Exhibits A & B Exhibit A includes the required setbacks for the principal structures on both parcels; actual compliance for the proposed garage addition on Parcel A and the new dwelling on Parcel B will be verified upon submission of building permit applications based on the proposed structure designs. Proposed Garage Addition The existing driveway accessing the attached garage on Parcel A would be removed as part of the proposed grading and construction for the new dwelling on Parcel B. Since the existing garage will be inaccessible without traversing Parcel B, a nonconformity would be created. In order to address this issue, the property owner is proposing to construct a garage addition on the front of the existing dwelling. Therefore, a condition requiring building permit approval and certificate of occupancy issuance for the proposed garage prior to recording the subdivision should be included in a recommendation of approval in this case. According to Title 12 -1D -4-D(2) of the City Code: Whenever buildings have been built on one side of the street between two (2) intersections, no building shall hereafter be erected to extend closer toward the street than the average of the required district setback and average setback of the adjoining principal structures. As shown on Exhibit A, the proposed side -loaded garage meets the required 72.2 -foot front yard setback based on the setbacks for the adjacent dwellings at 660 North Freeway Road and 1937 South Lane. Variance According to Title 11-3-8-A of the City Code: Slope Limitations: Subdivision design shall be consistent with limitations presented by steep slopes. Subdivisions shall be designed so that no construction or grading will be conducted on slopes steeper than twenty five percent (2501o) in grade. The natural topography and bluffs in Mendota Heights are certainly an amenity worth preserving, which is mostly likely the intent of this standard. As shown on Exhibit B, Parcel B contains slopes greater than 25% within the proposed building pad area that would be disturbed by construction and grading for the new dwelling; therefore a variance is required to approve the lot split request in this case. page 218 When considering a variance for the proposed construction and grading activities, the City is required to find that: 1. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive plan and the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. The applicant's request to subdivide the subject parcel and construct a new single-family dwelling is a reasonable use of the property and meets the general purpose and intent of the Code and Comprehensive Plan. Besides the impacted slopes, the requests are otherwise compliant with the applicable Code standards. 2. The applicant establishes there are practical difficulties with complying with the ordinance due to circumstances that are unique to the property which are not created by the applicant or based on economic considerations. According to the applicant, the impacted slopes over 25% on Parcel B (see Exhibit B) are man-made to retain dirt from construction of the existing driveway accessing the attached garage. In addition, the slopes in question are approximately 30% and comprise only 5.3% of the subject parcel. The Engineering Department has reviewed the slope in question and concurs with the applicant's determination; the slope appears to be uniformly -graded and is consistent across its length. In addition, other contours on the subject parcel appear to have been undisturbed and the slope in question cuts into them in an obvious manner. At the time the Code was adopted, the industry standard for constructed slopes was a 25% maximum. The current industry standard is now 33% maximum, which would make the slope in question compliant if the City were to consider following the current standard. Based on the existing conditions, the applicant has established a practical difficulty in subdividing the subject parcel in order to construct a new single-family dwelling in compliance with the applicable slope disturbance standards. Furthermore, the existing condition is a unique circumstance not created by the applicant. 3. The request will not alter the essential character of the locality. The North Freeway Road neighborhood contains a mix lot widths ranging from 100-200 feet, however the immediately adjacent parcels are both 100 feet wide. Both the proposed garage addition and new dwelling would have front yards setbacks of more than 72 feet, which are consistent with the varying setbacks in the neighborhood. The existing topography on Parcel B will be substantially altered to create a building pad for the new dwelling. As a result, further review of grading and drainage plans as part of the building permit application process are required to ensure there are no negative impacts to surrounding properties. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the subdivision and variance requests, based on the attached findings of fact that, with conditions. OR 2. Recommend denial of the subdivision and variance requests, based on the findings of fact that the proposed subdivision and associated construction and grading activities are not consistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Plan and will have a negative impact on surrounding properties. M171 3. Table the request. page 219 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the subdivision and variance requests based on the attached findings of fact (Alternative 1), with the following conditions: 1. A building permit is approved and certificate of occupancy issued for the proposed garage on Parcel A prior to the subdivision being recorded by Dakota County. 2. Park dedication fee in the amount of $2,700, in lieu of land, is collected after City Council approval and before being recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits by the City. Street reconstruction assessment fee in the amount of $3,700, as part of North Freeway Road Project 2002-02, is collected after City Council approval and before being recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits by the City. 4. The applicant shall dedicate the following drainage and utility easements on both parcels to be denoted on the Certificate of Survey submitted to Dakota County: 10 -foot wide along the front property lines and 5 -foot wide along the side and rear property lines. Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with associated easements, subject to review and approval by the City Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 7. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City's Land Disturbance Guidance Document. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Aerial site map 2. Site photos 3. Planning applications, including supporting materials page 220 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Subdivision Request for a Lot Split and Variance 650 North Freeway Road The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed subdivision request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed garage addition to the existing dwelling addresses the nonconformity caused by the proposed subdivision request and subsequent construction of a new single-family home. 3. The impacted slopes over 25% appear to be man-made as part of construction and reinforcement of the existing driveway. 4. The impacted slopes over 25% are less than the current 33% maximum industry standard for constructed slopes and comprise only 5.3% of the subject parcel. Planning Case 2015-23 650 North Freeway Road 0 (b 50 Date- 6/8/2015 SCALE IN FEET 65A1. r ----------- FREEWAY Rn N City of Mendota Heights W" 659 641 y I''. • / .r AWilltris GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. page 223 CUSTOM HOMES June 1, 2015 Nolan Wall City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: 650 North Freeway Road Lot Split Dear Nolan: We are requesting a lot split and permit relating to the property at 650 North Freeway Road. Please consider the following: Intent: We are requesting that 650 North Freeway Road be split into two parcels since it meets the criteria set forth by the City of Mendota Heights municipal code. The existing home currently located on the property will be staying and after the split our intention is to build a new single family home on the new parcel located on the east side. We currently have a fully executed Purchase Agreement on the above property for the new parcel that would be created on the east side of the existing home with the contingency the property could be divided into 2 parcels. Construction of the new home would take place upon approval of all city permit applications and issuance of a building permit by the City of Mendota Heights. Our Request: Permission to divide the property into two parcels, creating a new single-family home site on the east parcel. Variance Request: In response to the variance request, we feel that the area of the property is man made and not natural to the contour of the property. The hill/retaining wall was built to help retain dirt for the driveway and side entrance garage. In the proposed lot split, the driveway and garage would go away and a new front load garage would be added to the front of the house. This would allow a more natural slope to be made on the east side of the house. 1. With the improvements to the property, it would allow for a single family residence to be built on the east portion of the existing property and we feel that is a reasonable use of the property 2. The area of yard that has a greater than 25% slope is a small percentage of the property and appears to be man made to retain the dirt for the driveway. page 224 The variance would allow for a new single family home. The property across the street has recently had a new home built along with a few others in the same neighborhood. The home will be designed with modern amenities and would fit in nicely in this desirable neighborhood Sincerely, Sean Doyle Chief Manager SD Companies, LLC, d.b.a. SD Custom Homes page 225 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights. MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651,452,89,10 fax c1l'y OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Property Address/Street Location: (c),3 0 � t-'(- LtAJ5 cA Applicant Name:, Phone:—65-1 2—Lis Applicant E -Mail Address: 6'e,&_r) Applicant Mailing Address: —7 00 JA Property Owner Name:. �,)! o k'n ra'5 Phone: Property Owner Mailing Address: L_j Ir Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Tit a or Deed must be provided) 3'i,K�s 6-n kkkk kis 1-1 e)tL -3 Type of Request: LJ Rezoning Ll Conditional Use Permit J Conditional Use Permit for PUD )A Variance Ll Wetlands Permit LJ Preliminary/Final Plat Approval LJ Subdivision Approval Ll Critical Area Permit LJ Comprehensive Plan Amendment LJ Code Amendment Lot Split LJ Other, I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours. Sighhture of Owner (if more than one) Date Planning Application (modified 112812014) Page 9 of 9 page 226 1101 Victoria Curve i Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 6551,452.8940 fax vvv)v;.ine-ndota-lieigl)ts.caiii CITY OF MENOOTA HEIGHTS VARIANCE CHECKLIST/QUESTIONNAIRE Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Office Use, Only. Planning Commission and/or City Council only after all 5- — 72� required materials have been submitted. Application Case #: submittal deadlines are available on the City's website Ap . plicant: or by contacting the City Planner. Late or incomplete applications will not be put on the agenda. Address. e 97 0 N w4, A variance is a request to vary from the City of Mendota Heights zoning standards. Under Minnesota State Law, variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning code and when consistent with the comprehensive plan. Variances may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning standards. "Practical difficulties," in regards to variance requests, has three parts: (1) the proposed use of the property is a reasonable; (2) unique circumstances exist on the property which are not created by the landowner; and (3) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Please consider these requirements carefully before requesting a variance. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: ® Dated original of all the materials checked must be submitted by the end of the business day the Monday before the first Tuesday of the month. • If all original materials are 11 x 17 or smaller - only submit originals. ® If materials are larger than 11 x 17, please provide 24 copies, folded to 8 Y2 x 11. • Any drawing in color - must submit 24 copies. The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: Fee, as included in Fee Schedule (check payable to City of Mendota Heights) NOTE. Planning Application fees do not cover building permit fees, utilities, or other fees which may be required for you to complete your project. W Completed Application Form (only original needs to be submitted). Sketch plan showing all pertinent dimensions, and including the location of any easements having an influence upon the variance request. Letter of Intent. Please complete the attached questions regarding your request 4; e, e- /,-e lte,— a t t- J &t.- f - Variance Checklist(Questionnaire (modified 121612013) Page 1 of 3 a. FREEWAY ROAD/ N. --I— ��I-----I �— M ) — — 200.0 page 227 —INV: 09.55 --->----->-----> 0 1 , I I I I I I I I A—r/r A—O I ��� a —j pro wa� M r OP N I i NJ"I L— �/I iN Existing �� / O n House j / ad Bio L ... / _ X29 /�0 WO vii�l N 127 2\6 r%..; / j USAN. /INV.:.OS Existing r.,. ,�:;!� / or House --- 10.3 10. �N / N PARCEL y / J / �ARCEL B \ Are�c -- J060 SF �\— Ar a = 25000 SF r /1 / -________ T_[SEMA%C ,UNE]____ _ -- 40.6 � 100.0 © Pi—, Engines -ring j I I � Proposed Legal Desscription Parcel "A" Pr000sed Legal Desscription Parcel "B" The West 100 feet as measured All that part of Lot 2, Block 3, parallel with the West line of Lot 2, JEFFERSON HEIGHTS according to the Block 3, JEFFERSON HEIGHTS according recorded plat thereof Dakota County, g42s to the recorded plat thereof Dakota Minnesota lying East of the West 100 939.8 County, Minnesota. feet as measured parallel with the 936.9 West line of said Lot 2. 1 i >< This sketch does not purport to show the existence or nonexistence of any �1 mi encroachments fromor onto the hereon described land, easements of record or unrecorded easements which affect said land or any improvements to said land. 921.2 • Topography and improvements shown are per information provided by others. Side Yard Setback 18.6/2= 9.3 « Na search for recorded or unrecorded easements was made by this surveyor as a part of this exhibit. Front Yard Setback ( 93.8 + 134.9 + 30) / 2 = 72 Denotes ser'ce 2 ® Denotes teleNsion box To be removed (by others) Scale: 1" = 40' Denotes electric bo>< J 04-03_15 Lidar saifvc Benchmark: ❑� Denotes telephone box x„........ . Denotes retaining wall designed and _) 2.)04 -14 -IS Topo for Top Nut Hydrant x 000.00 Denotes existing elevation built by others. z-)ar-m-Is n,ld Elevation = (000.00) Denotes proposed elevation Denotes drainage flow direction Denotes spike S�EDi� JEFFERSON HEIGHTS neem P A Lot z, Block 3, Lot Split Exhibit A for: according to the recorded plat thereof 2422F.merpse 1)ive Ph. :I651)6N 1-1914 Dakota County, Minnesota S.D. RenovationsMcndoln xcighty, nnn ss nD Fos: (651)691-9498Address: 650 Freeway Road, Mendota Heights, Minnesota ww w.pioneneng.co, Owner: John Koras P -i -t 4:115065000 F-1&, 4:1320 Dra.�rby kth © Pi—, Engines -ring FREEWAY ROAD/ N. =---<-----<yrrv-9t59ri M- =\J1A.u5---->---- — > 200.0 page 228 >---->----->-----> 0 MOO Q/ � I I I I I I I OCi LO v�or • I a Existing n House N 1 / / 1 Ln/ $2'9 / / / I N 1272m i / Existing House --- ZN10.r°I�,�� PARCEL060 Sy / J / �ARCEL B \ \ Are�c --JF\� Ara = 25000 SF /---------—[sE.ACk uNE]_--- -- 40.6 _– 100.0 1� a°�f q i Proposed Legal Desscription Parcel "A" Proposed Legal Desscription Parcel "B" The West 100 feet as measured All that part of Lot 2, Block 3, parallel with the West line of Lot 2, JEFFERSON HEIGHTS according to the re8428 Block 3, JEFFERSON HEIGHTS according recorded plat thereof Dakota County, to the corded plat thereof Dakota Minnesota lying East of the West 100 939.8 County, Minnesota. feet as measured parallel with the 936.9 West line of said Lot 2. ; >< This sketch does not purport to show the existence or nonexistence of any encroachments fromor onto the hereon described land, easements of record or m; unrecorded easements which affect said land or any improvements to said land. 921.2 • Topography and improvements shown are per information provided by others. Side Yard Setback « Na search for recorded or unrecorded easements was made by this surveyor as 18.6/2= 9.3 a part of this exhibit. Front Yard Setback ( 93.8 + 134.9 + 30) / 2 = 72 2 Denotes ser 'ce ® Denotes tel—sion box — Denotes 253 slope Scale: 1" = 40' � Denotes electric box ,-1oa-o3-s ud,r�rtn�° Benchmark: ❑� Denotes telephone box x„.......... Denotes retaining wall designed and 210�-1�-” X0710101 Top Nut Hydrant X 000.00 Denotes existing elevation built by others. 3.10(-03-15 Add OruN°scdueisgc Elevation = ( 000.00) Denotes proposed elevation Denotes drainage flow direction A Denotes spike SNEED P JEFFERSON HEIGHTS i� f22B1'b .A. Lot 2, Block 3, Lot Split Exhibit B for: according to the recorded plat thereof 2422 P.nle,p,ise TM ve Ph.:16.51)6N I-1914 Dakota County, Minnesota S.D. Renovations xcightv,t ssnD Fas:(651)691-94x8 Address: 650 Freeway Road, Mendota Heights, Minnesota ww w.p,oneneng.co, Owner: John Karas P,,,jeot4:115065000 Folaa,-4:1320 D,—,,I,y_.kth 0 Pi—, Engines -ring Print Preview Page 1 of 1 page 229 Planning Case 2015-23 Public Hearing Notice Mailing List r=, 273860004021 2733H003131 0 646 FREEWAY RD S 667 FREEWAY RD S ADAM K & CAP LEY M ESTALL DILLON & LIZA WHITMIRE 273860004050 273S60004040 668 FREEWAY RD S 660 FREEWAY RD S AMY DUTTON DON J & SUSAN I BOLLINGER-BRGWN 273860002051277590002010 10 667 FREEWAY RD N 0 656 WESLEY LN BRIAN E & REBECCA M TSCHIDA ELIE GERTNER 273860003150273860003141 10 651 FREEWAY RD S 0 659 FREEWAY RD S CHI NINE TSANC H TO H PROPERTIES LLC 273860003050273860001032 10 670 FREEWAY RD N 0 1945 SOUTH LN CONSTANCE J FLEMING JACK I & BETTY A ANFINSON 273860003121 2738600010440 10 679 FREEWAY RD S 1968 SOUTH LN DANIEL J & SUSAN K T WILLS JOEL I & ERIN E ROSS 273860003010 273860003020 1937 SOUTH LN 650 FREEWAY RD N DANIEL L NORMAN JOHN P KARAS 273860004030 276475101010 654 FREEWAY RD S 0 664 WESLEY LN DAVID ERICKSON JULIE & PAUL BURKHARDT 273860001021 2775900021040 1940 SOUTH LN 19101 SOUTH LN DAVID M DARW= KENNETH 3 KAISER 277590002020 273860002010 w 650 WESLEY LN 0 1912 SOUTH LN DAVID W & DIANE L TS EISEN LOUIS WILLIAM & ALTS HAWKINS Disclaimer_ Nap and panmei data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is notguaranteed_ This is not a legal Map Seale document and should not be substituted fora title search appaaisaf, survey, or forroning verification_ Dakota County 1 inch = 511 feet assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. 6/3/2.015 http://gis.co. dakota.mn.uslDCGISIWebFonnsIPrint.aspx?img=http:Hgis.co.dakota.mn.us/Co... 6/3/2015 Print Preview Page 1 of 1 page 230 :277590001070 1,902 SOUTH LN LYNN M GIROUARD 273860004011 636 FREEWAY RD S MATTHEW ] REDDING 273860002050 663 FREEWAY RD N MICHELLE HESSLER 273360003160 641 FREEWAY RD S PATRICK T & REBECCA DEROSIA 273860001020 1025 SOUTH LN PHILIP M & RENAE C GOLDMAN 273860004D60 674 FREEWAY RD S THOMAS & COLETTE NORMAN 276475101020 672 WESLEY LN THOMAS A MINGO 273860001031 1954 SOUTH LN THOMAS S SARY 273860002020 1925 SOUTH LN TIMOTHY & NICOLE ROSGA 273860002060 0 679 FREEWAY RD N VEN AT & CARLA, PRAKASH 273860003040 664 FREEWAY RD N 273860003030 REGENCY HOME HEALTHCARE SERVICES 0 650 FREEWAY RD N LLC WAYNE B & JUDITH W T RIKAL4 2738600172030 273860003060 655 FREEWAY .RD N 684 FREEWAY RD N ROBERT TH0RES ON WILLIAM I RYAN 27386100104012 1971 SOUTH LN ROY M & DAlNETfE M KINGSLEY Diselairrer_ Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but aeeuracy is notguaranteed_ This is nota legal Map Scale document and sFrould not be substituted fora tide search,appraisal, survey, or forzoning venrocabon_ Dakota County 1 inch = 3()5 feet o crrimat nn +arra? rachrnncitiifrfir fnr M. inF-fink rnhFa rhar8 in ifnis rlafa http://gis.co. dakota.mn.uslDCGISIWebFonnsIPrint.aspx?img=http:Hgis.co.dakota.mn.us/Co... 6/3/2015 State of Minnesota K S8 County of Dahota B. KITTY SLTNDBBDG being duly sworn, on oo#l, says that he/she is the publisher or authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known a . and has full knowledge ofthe facts which are stated below: (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification as e qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331 A.02, 331 A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. (B) The printed NOTICE OFHEARING which is attached was cut from the columns of said navvopupo[ and was printed and published once each �m week, for l successive weeks; itwas �ret published on 8T]]�D/�l�. the day of JUNE . 20 15 ' and was thereafter printed and published on every to and inn|uding' the day of . 20____; and printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from AtoZ,both inclusive, which iahereby, acknowledged asbeing the sizeand kind of type used inthe composition and publication ofthe notice: Subscribed and sworn tobefore meon 'm 8 dayof2 l5 _Y�7NZtar�'Public *Alphabet should bein the same size and kind of type as the notice. .. G-TONYA R. WHITEHEAD Notary Public -Minnesota RATE INFORMATION (1) Lowest classified rate paid bv TITLE LEGAL C60RDINATOR (Z) Maximum rate allowed bvlaw for the above matter ................. (3) Rate actually charged for the above matter .............................................. 1M5 .$25.00per col. inch _� per col. inch page 232 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS G - NOTICE OF HEARIN 'A PUBLIC HEARING ON LOT SPLIT11 & VARIANCE REQUESTS " AT 650 NORTH FREEWAY ROAD TO, WHOM IT MAYCONCERN. NOTICE Is hereby given that the Planning Commission of Mendota Heights will meet at 7:00, P.M., or as soon as possible r thereafter, on Tuesday, June "23, 2015'in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101' Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider lot split and variance requests at650 `North Freeway Road. This Ireq ueStr has been assigned Planning , Case number 2015-23. This no#ice,is pursuant to -Title ii (Subdivision) and Title, 12" (Zoning) of the".Mendota Heights City Code. - Such Dersons as desire to be heard page 233 9d. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota he,yr . 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota•helghts.com , CITY OF MENDDTA HEIGHTS DATE: July 7, 2015 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Ordinance 479 Adopting Interim Uses BACKGROUND The City Council recently discussed interim uses as part of a larger discussion on a temporary off -leash dog recreation area potentially located on city -owned property that may be redeveloped in the future. In addition, interim uses may be further explored as part of the upcoming Redevelopment Plan for the Industrial District. DRAFT Ordinance 479 establishes interim uses and contains standards and procedures for issuing interim use permits. Subsequent amendments would be required to establish specific interim uses within any zoning district. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at the June 23 meeting; there were no public comments. BUDGETIMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended approval of DRAFT Ordinance 479, as described in Planning Case 2015-22. If the City Council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion adopting ORDINANCE 479 CONCERNING INTERIM USES. This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 234 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 479 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLES B AND L OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING CONDITIONAL AND INTERIM USES The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: Section 1. Title 12 -IL -6E-1 is hereby amended as follows: Grant Of Permit; E"ifatio Of Do,.mi : In considering an application for a conditional use permit under this chapter, the council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the planning commission and the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants or surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets, and the effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan. If the council shall determine that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will seriously depreciate surrounding property value, and that the same is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the comprehensive plan, the council may grant such conditional use permit imposing conditions and safeguards therein. ^ time limit may be eendiliefW use has eeaser a period e. si . (ti) me The city council may, by an affirmative vote of the majority of all members thereof, approve a conditional use permit. The city council may, by an affirmative vote of the majority of all members thereof, approve a conditional use permit for planned unit development. Section 2. Title 12 -IB -2 is hereby amended as follows: INTERIM USE: A temporary use of property until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit the use. INTERIM USE PERMIT: A permit specially and individually granted for an interim use in any district. Section 3. Title 12-1L-6-1 is hereby added as follows: INTERIM USES: A. Purpose: The purposes for allowing interim uses are to: 1. Allow a use for a limited period of time until a permanent location is obtained or while the permanent location is under construction. 2. Allow a use for a limited period of time that reasonably utilizes the property where it is not reasonable to utilize it in the manner otherwise provided in the comprehensive plan or city code. DRAFT — 07.07.15 City Council Review page I of 4 page 235 3. Allow a use that is presently acceptable but that, with anticipated development or redevelopment, will not be acceptable in the future or will be replaced by in the future by a permitted or conditional use allowed within the respective zoning district. 4. Allow a use that is seasonal in nature. B. Application for Permit: All applications for an interim use permit are subject to the requirements in section 12 -IL -613 of this chapter. C. Referral to Planning Commission: All applications for an interim use permit are subject to the requirements in section 12 -1L -6C of this chapter. D. Planning Commission Hearing and Recommendations: All applications for an interim use permit are subject to the requirements in section 12 -IL -6D of this chapter. E. Action By City Council: 1. Grant of Permit: In considering an application for an interim use permit under this chapter, the council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the planning commission and the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants or surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets, and the effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan. The council may, by an affirmative vote of the majority of all members thereof, grant such interim use permit imposing conditions and safeguards therein if: a. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will seriously depreciate surrounding property value. b. The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in conflict on an on-going basis. c. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty. d. Permission of the use will not impose, by agreement, additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future. e. The user agrees to any conditions that the city deems appropriate for permission of the use, including a condition that the owner will provide an appropriate financial surety to cover the cost of removing an interim use and any structures upon expiration or revocation of the interim use permit. f. The use will not delay anticipated development or redevelopment of the site. g. The property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city code standards. h. The use is allowed as an interim use in the applicable zoning district. 2. Denial Of Permit: Interim uses may be denied by resolution of the city council, and such resolution shall include a fmding and determination that the conditions required for DRAFT — 07.07.15 City Council Review page 2 of 4 page 236 approval do not exist. No application for an interim use which has been denied wholly or in part shall be resubmitted for a period of six (6) months from the date of said order of denial, except on grounds of new evidence or proof of change of conditions found to be valid by the planning commission. F. Revocation Of Permit: An interim use permit may be revoked by any of the following; whichever occurs first: 1. A violation of any condition set forth in an interim use permit, which shall also be considered a violation of the city code. 2. A violation of any law of the United States or the state of Minnesota, or city code. 3. If after approval it is discovered the permit was issued based on false, misleading, or fraudulent information. 4. An amendment to the city code which prohibits the use. 5. The use becomes in conflict with the comprehensive plan. 6. The expiration date or occurrence of any event(s) stated in the permit for termination of the use. 7. The use has ceased for a continuous period of at least six (6) months. 8. The use has not commenced or a building permit for a structure to support the use has not been issued within one (1) year after approval. G. Notice Of Revocation: Upon occurrence of the date or event for termination of the interim use permit, the city shall notify the permittee in writing that the interim use permit shall terminate not later than six (6) months after the date of such notice. H. Effect Of Permit: An interim use permit is effective only for the location specified in the application. The issuance of an interim use permit does not confer on the property any vested right. L Permit Review: An interim use permit may be reviewed at any time if the city council is of the opinion that the terms and conditions of the permit have been violated or if one of the criteria for termination has been met. J. Permit Extension: The city council shall have the right to extend the termination date for such additional periods as are consistent with the terms and conditions of the original permit. Section 4. This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication. Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this ## day of Month, 2015. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DRAFT — 07.07.15 City Council Review page 3 of 4 page 237 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com , T mCITY OF MENDIDTA HEIGHTS DATE: June 23, 2015 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2015-22 Proposed Code Amendments — Interim Uses APPLICANT: City of Mendota Heights PROPERTY ADDRESS: N/A ZONING/GUIDED: N/A ACTION DEADLINE: N/A DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The City is considering amendments to Title 12-1B-2 and 12-1L of the City Code concerning interim uses. BACKGROUND MN Statute 462.3597 permits municipalities to establish interim uses by provision in the local zoning code. Interim uses must conform to the zoning regulations and can be terminated based on a date or event that can be identified with certainty. As a result, they are effective tools for redevelopment planning by allowing for certain temporary uses of property without jeopardizing the long-range plan. DRAFT Ordinance 479 establishes interim uses and contains standards and procedures for issuing interim use permits. Subsequent amendments would be required to establish specific interim uses within any zoning district. The City Council recently discussed interim uses as part of a larger discussion on a temporary off -leash dog recreation area potentially located on city -owned property that may be redeveloped in the future. In addition, interim uses may be further explored as part of the upcoming Redevelopment Plan for the Industrial District. The City is proposing consideration of the DRAFT amendments at this time in an effort to be proactive and have the process in-place prior to future requests. ANALYSIS DRAFT Ordinance 479 includes the following proposed amendments: Conditional Uses Title 12 -1L -6E-1 of the City Code contains procedures for issuance of conditional use permits. MN Statute 462.3595 establishes that a conditional use permit runs with the land and remains in effect as long as the conditions agreed upon are observed. The following clause is proposed to be removed due to its inconsistency with state statutes and proposed establishment of interim use permits: page 238 Definitions The following definitions are proposed to be added to Title 12-1B-2 of the City Code: INTERIM USE: A temporary use of property until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit the use. INTERIM USE PERMIT.- A permit specially and individually granted for an interim use in any district. Interim Uses Title 12-1L-6-1 is proposed to be added to the City Code to establish interim use standards and permitting procedures. The purpose for allowing interim use permits are to: 1. Allow a use for a limited period of time until a permanent location is obtained or while the permanent location is under construction. 2. Allow a use for a limited period of time that reasonably utilizes the property where it is not reasonable to utilize it in the manner otherwise provided in the comprehensive plan or city code. 3. Allow a use that is presently acceptable but that, with anticipated development or redevelopment, will not be acceptable in the future or will be replaced by in the future by a permitted or conditional use allowed within the respective zoning district. 4. Allow a use that is seasonal in nature. The application procedure is proposed to be the same as for conditional use permits, which requires notice and a public hearing before the Planning Commission prior to action by the City Council. As proposed, interim use permits can be approved if: L The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will seriously depreciate surrounding property value. 2. The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in conflict on an on-going basis. 3. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty. 4. Permission of the use will not impose, by agreement, additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future. 5. The user agrees to any conditions that the city deems appropriate for permission of the use, including a condition that the owner will provide an appropriate financial surety to cover the cost of removing an interim use and any structures upon expiration or revocation of the interim use permit. 6. The use will not delay anticipated development or redevelopment of the site. 7. The property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city code standards. 8. The use is allowed as an interim use in the applicable zoning district. As proposed, interim use permits can be revoked by any of the following: page 239 1. A violation of any condition set forth in an interim use permit, which shall also be considered a violation of the city code. 2. A violation of any law of the United States or the state of Minnesota, or city code. 3. If after approval it is discovered the permit was issued based on false, misleading, or fraudulent information. 4. An amendment to the city code which prohibits the use. 5. The use becomes in conflict with the comprehensive plan. 6. The expiration date or occurrence of any event(s) stated in the permit for termination of the use. 7. The use has ceased for a continuous period of at least six (6) months. 8. The use has not commenced or a building permit for a structure to support the use has not been issued within one (1) year after approval. The remainder of the proposed DRAFT ordinance contains permit review and extension procedures. ALTERNATIVES Following the public hearing and further discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of DRAFT Ordinance 479, as presented or as amended by the Commission. M 2. Recommend denial of DRAFT Ordinance 479. '1 3. Table the request, pending additional information and revisions from staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the proposed code amendments. If acceptable to the Commission, action can be taken at this month's meeting. Staff would propose to bring back any substantial revisions for review and further discussion at a future meeting prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. DRAFT Ordinance 479 2. Planning application, including supporting materials page 240 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651,452.1850 phone I 651AS2.8940 fax CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Property Address/Street Location: N/A Applicant Name: City of Mendota Heights Phone: 651-452-1850 Applicant E -Mail Address: nolanw@mendota-heights.com Applicant Mailing Address: 1101 Victoria Curve Property Owner Name: N/A Phone: N/A Property Owner Mailing Address: N/A Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) N/A Type of Request: ❑ Rezoning ❑ Variance ❑ Subdivision Approval N Code Amendment ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Wetlands Permit ❑ Critical Area Permit ❑ Lot Split ❑ Conditional Use Permit for PUD ❑ Preliminary/Final Plat Approval ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑ Other I hereby declare that all statements made in this r quest In the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to i ect ov property during daylight hours. 06-01-2015 Si Zit-urErdf-ArTplicant Date Signature of Owner Date Signature of Owner (if more than one) Date Planning Application (modified 112812014) Page 1 of 1 Affidavit _fPublication State of o{MBnoeanta K 8S County of Dahota EKITTY SUNDBERG �- ' " - being duly sworn, on oath, says that he/she is the publisher or authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as SOUTH-WEST REVIEW and has full knowledge of the foots which are stated below: (A) The newspaper has complied with all uf'the requirements constituting qualification as oqm��ed nevvspapar, as provided byK8|nneootaSba�te331A.U2.331A.07.and other applicable laws, aaamended. ` NOTICE OF HEARING which is attached was cut from the columns of said nevvepoper, and was printed and published once each T* forwnek. � l successive weeks; it was first published on SUNDAY . the7day of ]T]NE 20 15 and was thereafter printed and published on every to and including . the ______day of . 20____; and printed be/ow.is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used inthe composition and publication nfthe notice: Subscribed and sworn tobefore meon thisTI-1� Tday of JUNE 12015 Notary Public ~Alphabet should bo|nthe same size and kind of type as the notice. AD TONYA R. =WHITEHEAD My CommLsWon EIW:tms Jan 31, 2020 ary =(qNotary Public -Minnesota RATE INFORMATION (1) Lowest classified nate paid by TITLE LEGAL CtOORDINATOR 'z�' (2) Maxknumratee/lowadbvlaefovUleabovemattor---' ............. $25.00per col. inch .................... %25.0Oper col. inch CARate actually charged for the above matter ....................................................... $ per col. inch 1/15 page 242